Mexico weekly ledger., 1891-10-08
WADE vs.. RING0.
The Injunction Suit to Be Tried Oct0-
Der 1.-THE Case Attracting
Great Deal of Attention
A Heavy Bond Given
BY the Receiver.

Inc injunction suit oi Chas.
Wade VS. Brit Rlngo will be tri-
ed October II. The original Pc
tition in this suit claims, that on
or about the - day of July, 1881,
the plaintiff, Chas. Wade, and the
defendant, Brit Ringo, entered in
to ii contract in relation to one
halt interest of said Ringo bed for
the exchange of the same for plain
tif's stock of goods, consisting of
furniture, collins, hearse, etc. !; that
the defendant, Ringo, intended to
wrong, cheat and detraud the plain
tiff out of his stock of goods and
property, knowingly, fraudlently
and deceitfully represented to the
plaintiff that said bed was such
an improvement over other fold
ing beds in common use, that all
weights used in them for balancing
could be dispensed with by the use
of springs, tracks and rollers, and
that defendant representing that
his bed, in ordinary use, would
not tip, fall over, etc. That in
said exchange the defendant, Ringo,
further agreed to have three of the
beds made at Quincy, and to buy
them of plaintiff. The petition
then goes on to say that the patent
will not work practically, will not
stand up while in ordinary ISL and
is perfectly useless, and is danger
Gus to life and limb and cannot be
used. The plaintiff further claims
that it was understood that said
Ringo would make q contract with
J. G. Buckner, who vas owner of
the other half Of said bed, that said
Buckner, at his own expense, was
to introduce it into the market and
to engage in the sale of said folding
bed, or forfeit to the plaintiff the
other half. Plaintiff says that the
defendant has failed to fulfill this
part of the contract. Plaintiff says
that in Pursuance to said promise,
be delivered to defendant all of his
stock Of furniture, and that he new
er received any consideration of any
kind whatever for his property.
The above are some Of the
grounds upon which the plaintiff
asked that a receiver be appointed
Mr.. R. H. Cauthorn was appointed
receiver of the store when the in
junction was granted. The bond
was $4,000 with the following Sc.
curities /: Charles Wade, G.. P.
Wade, ). H. Buckley, R. II. eau
thorn, G. N. Wales, G. D. Ferris
and ]. NJ. Barker.
The attorneys IN the case are S.
W. Buckley and J. M. Barker for
plaintiff, with Geo. Robertson and
w. w. Fry for defendant.
The defendant in his motion
for dissolution of injun ction claims
first, that there is no equity in
plaintiffs bill second, that more.
over plaintiffs bill was untrue
third, that he is not entitled to re.
lief sought, and fourth that his pc.
tition states no cause of action MOI
cause for injunction against the
plaintiff. The defendant in his
answer claims that the trade was
made at the solicitation of the
plaintiff, that the defendant owned
one half of the bed and that Capt
Buckner, of Mexico, owned the
other half. The defendant then
flies in the answer the copy o,
the contract made between Biz
Ringo and c.. Wade, signed By
both parties, which contract is fol
the trade between Mr.. Wade fol
his furniture store to MI. Ringt
tor one half interest in his bed
The defendant also says tina
plaintiff knew as much of the in
vention as defendant did; that h
bought said folding bed on his owl
Judgment, free from any warrantee:
or representation from the defend
ant. That said defendant did pro
cure letters patent upon said in
vention as he agreed to. The de
PENDANT further answering deniei
each and every allegation of plain
tiff's petition made. The case i
set for October 18th and will b.
bitterly contested