Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-15
MUST TELL THE STORY.
Judge White Orders Refractory
Witnesses to Testify In
THE BALTIMORE TERMINAL DEAL.
II They Don't They Will Be Arrested for
Contempt Of Court
CLAIMS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS

The petition to compel witnesses to
answer in the case of Amy Du Puy versus
the Transportation and Terminal Company,
of Baltimore, came up before Judge White
yesterday.
The Judge declined to hear any Of the
attorneys for the witnesses, and thought 1t
strange that the lawyers for the defendants
should instruct them not to answer ques-
tions before the commissioners appointed
to take testimony. It will be remembered
that several local banks lost heavily in the
Maryland Central pool, and their officers
declined to testify when called upon to do
SO in the suit pending.
Judge White decided that he had made q
ruling that the witnesses should appear, and
he proposes to have it carried out. He says
witnesses must answer questions, and If any
objections are made, these can be noted,
and then their relief is in the Maryland
courts. Witnesses who refuse to answer
will be judged guilty of contempt and
punished.
Witnesses Want n Fair Deal.
Winfield j. Taylor, for the Transports
tion Company, John Henry Miller and
William Gilmore filed an answer to the
petition. They claim it was their right to
object to irrelevant and improper questions
and the irregular proceedings of the COM
missioner. Defendants, however, wanted
the Court to understand that they have no
objection to any proper question or legiti-
mate inquiry nor do they fear the result of
fair investigation, claiming their dealings
have been honest and bona fide. Counsel
claims the commissioners acted irregularlyi in
acting jointly according to the rules of the
Baltimore court.
The defendants counsel then proceeds to
show how irrelevant and improper the ques-
tions put to witnesses are, and in this con-
nection says:
The Transportation and Terminal Com
pany was corporation organized to con-
road), which were being promoted by the
organizers OF said corporations. These pro-
motions were being ably and successfully
carried toward consummation when certain
parties interested, other than the defend
nnts, by their wrongful conduct, wrecked
the Terminal Company and 1t was forced
into insolvency, and BY the consentof a
directors. O deed of trust was made to Win
field j. Taylor, who has acted under the
orders OF the Circuit Court No. 2, Of Balti-
more city, and by which court all his pro-
ceedings to settle its affairs have been finally
ratified and confirmed.
Plaintihs Want Their Money Back.
Before the failure OF the Terminal Com
pany, however, and while 1t was, as plain
tiffs' own witnesses. bravo and Gustav Lin.
denthaI testified in this case. "a No. pro-
ject," the plaintiffs, after having every
who were thoroughly posted by Mr.. Linden
thai, the engineer in charge and one or the
promoters, as to its status, became the
owner OF certain shares OF stock of the
FRA n tQ
When the project failed, the plaintiffs
wanted their money back, and on failure to
get it out of the sale Of its assets by,the
PENDANTS, coupled with many serious allega-
tions and threats both in and outside of the
bill. all of which allegations, undera full ex-
OF Lindenthal and all other witnesses, they
have utterly failed to establish or Justify.
As TO the allegations of plaintiffs that dc.
PENDANTS wrongfuly disposed of the assets
Of the Terminal Company, and thereby the
plaintiffs, US the stockholders, suffered loss,
which is the pith of the whole complaint,
there has as yet been not the slightest evi-
dence.
As Viewed by the Defense.
Although the plaintiffs themselves have
testified, and other Witnesses as Samuel
Rea, who succeeded Ltndenthal as engineer
of the company, and J. G. Case, who was the
Secretary Of the Terminal Company, both
being their trusted friends and In whom
they chiefly relied for support in their alle-
CATION, they have utterly failed to establish
any ono material allegation of their bill. In
fact, their own witness bravo fully testified
he had no dealings with any Of the defend
ants, except Mr.. Miller, ana that this was
legitimate and bona flde, and that he know
of no dealings to the contrary. The officers
of the banks have testified they only had
dealings with bravo, which were legitimate,
and have had none with any of the de-
fendants.
M. b. Houseman was present from Balti-
more to look after the interests of the de-
PENDANTS. He says there have been no
material developments in the case.