Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-10-22
A QUESTION OF PROFITS,
The Case OF Richardson VS., tho
Walton g. Whann Company,

Judge Acheson, the successor of Judge
hennan, and Judge Wales, sat at the
october term OF the United States cir
cut court, which began in this city on
tuesday. There was large attendance
OF attorneys,among whom were Senators
GRAY and Higgins, who are engaged in
number of cases.
OF the unusually large number of
cases on the argument list, ali were
continued or passed, with one exception.
In continuing the cases of Keene. Sut-
terly d. Co. and Wright 6 Thompson vs..
the Charles Mullin Company, announce.
ment was made by counsel that thew
were in process of settlement and would
probably not trouble the court at the
ensuing term.
other-matters being disposed of argu-
ment was heard in the case of Charles
Richardson VS.. L. T. Walton and
Francis N. Buck, in which the plaintiff,
who was large stakeholder in the firm,
composed OF himself and the defendants,
prays Tor revocation of the dissolution
OF the partnership. S. w. Hollings-
worth of Philadelphia and Senator Hig-
gins are counsel for the plaintiff, and
benjamin Nields and Senator Gray for
Mr.. Hollingsworth opened with q
statement of tho plaintiffs case. He
SAID 1t was not pleasant case, and in
vNlyes charges OF fraud and the un-
righteous Withholding of property. In
his recital of the circumstances the fol-
lowing statements were made:
The partnership between plaintiff and
defendant was formed on November
LIST, 1863. and was for five years, but
continued after the expiration Of this
limit, by mutual consent, as the bust
ness was very profitable. Of the capital
stock of 100000, Richardson CON
tributed 40 per cent, or 100000; Wal
ton, 70 per cent, or $4,000, and Buck
30 per cent, or 100000. Messrs. Walton
and Buck agreed not to engage in any
separate business, but to devote all their
time to the business of the firm, but
Richardson was not required to give any
more time to the business than might
be agreeable TO him They were to do no
endorsing except for the firms business,
without the consent of the firm. Mr..
walton, 1t was said, violated this agree
ment by becoming treasurer of an ice
and coal company. Statements of the
business were to be made semi-annually,
but none were made up from 1878 to
I 1884. The members of the firm got into
the custom of drawing against assumed
profits, in which manner, during the
year 1872, Walton drew out 1852 600
and Buck $55,000.
There was u constant friction be-
tween the partners, and they were only
held together, said Mr.. Hollingsworth,
blythe cohesive power of profits.
Early in 1885 Mr.. Richardson deter
mined to get out, and with view of
continuing in the same business pur-
chased controlling share OF the stock
OF the Waldo Phosphate Company Of
South Carolina for $4,000. OF this
sum he raised $4,000 by discounting
the firms paper, as he thought he had
right to do, on account of his profits, his
partners having done likewise.
Between April LIST and April 9th, 1886,
Richardson came to Wilmington and
told Messrs. Walton & Buck Of his de-
sire to withdraw, whereupon some dis
cusslon as to terms ensued. Later they
received notice from the Philadelphia
Bank of the maturity of one of the
firms notes executed by Richardson,
and when he came down the next day
",
have had no knowledge of his transac-
ton. They asked him il there were
other notes and he said there were. At
forwards, in Philadelphia, he gave them
list OF these firm notes, amounting to
$l36, 100. Mr.. Walton was informed
by Captain LeMastge, the firms super
intendent, that this did not include all,
as Richardson had two of his notes for
$4,000 each.
About this time Mr.. Richardson was
quite i'll. lie had stroke of apoplectic
paralysis OH June 4th. Two days later
MIR. Walton called upon him at his
office, and used very vigorous language,
threatening him with litigation, and de-
manding that he turn over to the firm
his Waldo stock. Richardson refused.
June 10th Walter Francis, confiden-
tial book-keeper of the firm, was di-
rected by Walton & Buck to make out
. at once an estimate of the profits of the
concern for the year TO end on July 31st.
He did 80 and his estimate was 100000.
When the statement was shown to Mr..
Buck he said, according to the testimony
of Mr.. Francis, Richardson said the
profits would be only $4,000. The
id old fool, we'll settle with him on
his own estimate" Mr.. Bucks testimony
of what he said was this: ~ knew the
Asofits would be over $4,000; now the
id old fool will have to take his own
medicine"
Various other details of the attempts
to reach settlement were given by
counsel, including visit to this city Of
Judge Mitchell of Philadelphia, Mr..
Richardson's friend. Judge Mitchell
said that during the discussion of the
terms of proposed withdrawal by Rich
ardson, Mr.. Buck estimated the profits
of the year at $4,000, and also said
that they could not make out an esti-
mate in less than q month. Mr.. Hol-
lingsworth held that ii was impossible
to reconcile the testimony of Judge
Mitchell and Mr.. Buck.
Finally, terms Of dissolution were &C.
cepted by Mr.. Richardson and the part
nership was dissolved on July 18th,
1885. Now Mr.. Richardson claims that
he did not receive enough by $4,000
and wants the dissolution revoked and
an examination Of the firms accounts,
in order to determine his just dues.
DISTRICT COURT BUSINESS.
In, the district court the grand jury
retlreu ana the petlt jury was discharged
until next Tuesday morning.
The grand jury, at noon, was dis
charged until $50 o'clock p. m.
In the United States circuit court,
Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Hollingsworth
concluded his argument for the com
plainant in the case of Richardson VS..
the Walton s. Whann Company, and
Benjamin Nields began the arguments
for the respondents.
Mr.. Nields gave the respondents side