Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-08-20

Samuel severance, Jr., one OF the defend
! ants named in the bill, also set forth Ill his
affidavit that he had no knowledge of any
collusion or connivance to defraud. He
| denied in toto all the charges so far as they
| related to him.
George c. Wilson, representing William
| Loeffier, another of the defendants. next
| submitted an affidavit made by his client
! in which the latter explained clearly and iit
| length his business relations with Mr.
| SchmertZ. He showed by reference to the
records that he had indorsed largely for Mr..
Schmertz, not for any dishonest motives,
but simply to aid him in his business.
Afllant pointed out the heavy losses he had
| sustained through making such indorse-
ments. He is on the bond of w. f. Schmertz
Robert C. Schmertz, deceased, and as such
bondsman will be called upon to make good
his share OF the losses sustained by said
minor cnertz to whom psrdiapp IT. ap
is aindebted to an amount exceeding
$4,000. On June 13 deponent averred that he
endeavored to NEGOTIATE note for slSC COO for
Schmertz on the representation of the latter
that lie was solvent. Later he had loaned
Schmertz number of shares of stock i'll the
Standard Plate Glass Company; all of such
loans remain unpaid. Further, that just as
soon as Judgment was confessed in his favor
deponent had the same duly recorded, and
could not, therefore, have been Il party to
any scheme to keep secret the existence of
such judgments for the purpose of depr1ying
other creditors of their rights Mr.. Loeff1er'S
affidavit was an exhaustive document, show
ing pretty conclusively that instead of being
guilty OF the charges made against him by
the plaintiffs he is sure TO lose heavily
through Mr.. SchmertZ's failure.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE.
Mr.. McCook, in his argument took the
ground that not q particle of evidence had
been adduced to show fraud or collusion on
the part of the defendants. "Where it was
to our interest to show haste" said he "pro-
vided we intended to practice fraud, is it
reasonable to suppose that over 100000
would have been allowed to have been
placed on record ahead of MS? We knew moth
ing of IOeffier having entered up his JudS-
ment, and when we went to enter ours up we
found still others ahead of us. Does this look
like sweeping the money into Schmertz's re-
latiyes?
"The position is simply ridiculous. The
Eastern creditors knew of the execution as
soon as we did. and agreed to the plan sug-
gested, whereby larger amount could be
realized at the Sheritf's sale. This plan was
suggested by Mr.. Quinby, and if allowed to
be put into execution, would have resulteds
in the realization of larger amount for the
creditors"
On the conclusion Of the arguments, Judge
Acheson, in O brief opinion, said that he
thought it would be iniudicious for the court.
"The charge of fraud" said the Judge, 'is
both generally and specifically denied. If
Loeffler's affidavit be true, and there is no
evidence to controvert 1t; he can proceed to
sold. The cannot be carried pending long
litigation. The Sheriffs sale, If properly
conducted, will realize as much for the cred
itors as Il receivers sale. 1t would be tnJu-
dicious for this court to interfere with these
executions, and the bill is therefore dis
missed"
HOPED IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE.
W. S. Pier was seen yesterday, after the
decision of the Court became known. He
was inclined to be non-commttal on the
subject. He stated, however, that the
charges embodied in the bill in equity filed
by his clients had been made good
in faith, and while he had not
been tCo sanguine in his hopes
and that receiver would be appointed, he |
had expected in view of the nature OF these |
charges, that stay would be granted in |
order that Judicial Investigation might be |
the opinion that in view of the detailed |
denials and of the fact that there were |
about $l59 worth of claims not included |
in the bill 1iled, and that the goods would |
have to be sold in any event, the Sheriff |
might well conduct the sale as a
receiver, but that at any time the plaintiffs |
would have the privilege of filing papers |
against any unjust or unfair disposition or
of the goods.
On further questioning Mr.. Pier intimated |
that the end was not yet. He said he had
the defendants to assure himself that affi-
davits had been made to them. When
asked ash ed as as to the mex next step contem item
papers were legally and technically
answers, the next proceeding would proba-
bly, be the filing of q replication and petit
At all events his clients did not
propose to give up at this stage of the game.
THE VICTORY ANTICIPATED.
Mr. McCook, attorney for Mr.. schmertz,
lad little to say beyond the fact that they
lad won their point, as expected. He said
;he charges made against his clients had been
fully and specifically, even more
customary in the case of u preliminary hear
ng The reason for filing so voluminouS
document in answer was that many of the
claims in the bill embraced charges against
;he honesty of Mr.. SchmertZ and the other
defendants, such as fraud, false pretense, |
,tc., and that they did not propose to rest
lnder any such imputations when they
Gould so easily be disproved.
In answer to a question as to the
probable course which would be pur-
ued by the plaintiffs he said that they were
,een no intention or efforts on the part OF
he defendants to defraud them of their just
.laims.
Mr. McCook said that an adjournment of
he Sheriff's sale had been OBJ
diligence that certain bidders would
,e unable to get here in time for the sale, If
leld on Saturday next. So far from trying
o rush this thing through, said Mr.. McCook,
very effort is being made to induce large
lumber of bidders to be spresent, hence the
ale has been postponed till Tuesday, Au-
.ust %, at 10 O'Clock A. NJ.
Many expressions of satisfaction at the
utcome of the trial were heard among
he friends of Mr.. Schmertz yesterday,
nd he was the recipient of n number of con-
ratulatory messages from far and near re-
erring to the vindication which he had sus-
aimed at the hands of the Court.
ANOTHER SUIT AGAINST CHAMBERS.
Another suit against James A. Chambers
Tas entered and also against W. E.
chmertz, by j. NJ. Fox, President of the
'oxburg Bank, of Butler, to recover 5000
N a promissory note drawn by the Stand
I'd Plate Gla S. Company and ndorsed by
;hambers and schmertz. At their request
was discounted by the Fo3burg Bank. 1t
vas payable three months after date,
lay H. lSgb at the Tbd Third National
when due, but allowed to go to
protest. The attorneys for the plaintiff are
!. A. and James Balph, of Pittsburg.
A diligent effort was made last night to | {
btain some expression from Mr.. Chambers
II any other officials or stockholders of the
tandard Company In regard to this matter,
ut nothing was forthcoming. franklin Nc
iowan, when seen, said that after careful
consideration they had decided to make no
at present. Judge Kennedy, one
he stockholders, has just returned from
,edford. He was formerly the attorney for
he Standard Plate Glass Company, as we'll
s for Mr. Schmertz, but of course since his I
ccession to the bench he has given such I
usiness up. He stated that it would be t
impossible for him to say anything for '
d. E. Wheeler, the receiver of the Standard
ompany, was in the city yesterday ]
Ie knew of nothing of Importance in con-
ection with the companys affairs, and
tated that the plant was in full operation
nd in excellent shape and doing good