The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-30

counsel urge, single assessment would
yield $4,000. every claimant would have
reason and right 10 expect. under tho rules
of the order. TO receive $1,000 at the mo-
thrifty of his claim. lie read the rule re-
lating to assessments. and said it implies
that not more than two assessments could
be made in one month. and said If the evil
dence were at hand he would show that
members were assured that not more than
twenty assessments in ono year would be
made. This, at S2.50each. would amountto
$50 year and In seven years w0uld be
$3.50. This increase under the plans OF the
order was TO come either by increase OF
mum bers or by lapses This. he said. was
the system by which this order was TO pros
per. lt lies on the base proposition IN
morals and law that the shrewder aud
richer should prosper AZ the expense OK
those with less thrift aud perseverance,
from whatever canse IN keeping I'D these
assessments Mr.. Harris closed with this
arraignment
Mr.. HAWKINS SPEAKS.
MI. Hawkins followed for the appellees. He
discussed the subject of the sufiiciency of lhe
complaint He reviewed the averments, show
ing derelictIon OF duty by the officers in caring
and being able TO account for the money IN
trusted 10 them. The application for a receiver.
he said could not come before the court in any
other way than the one chosen. He maintained
that the plaintiffs had full and sufficient stand
ing, and were qualified to bring the
snit They had done all that the
rules OF the order required. They
had paid every assessment and were In good
standing. The money paid in by them was not
due at once or they could have collected it, They
were creditors and saw that their money was
officers. Two hundred thousand dollars had
been invested in al insolvent hank owned by the
supreme Officers ana sa S.ooeco had been taken
Supreme sitting because IL met only once
four years. The executive committee which
required to meet. under the rules. twice
scattered ali over the country. Mr.. Hawkins
then made a rapid review OF the rules. and dwele
justice in the older 10 remove, without right or
appeal any member speaking in derogatory
character OF another member. All were thus
sienced. the advocate argued. In regard TO adj
verse comment on the action or the supremers in
abstracting funds belonging TO the order for tho
purpose OF bolstering up an insolvent bank In
Philadelphia. IL Is idle talk, he said.
for appellants TO say that members should have
criticised Somerby. and thus brought about re-
lief from the wrongs complained Of lt was as
serted that the cases cited by appellants not
in point as none relates to the appointment OF q
receiver.
Taking up the argument of appellants that the
order was based on assessments aud could nos
become insolvent. Mr. Hawkins said assess
they Cannot u be enforeed The only pen
atty for refusal 10 pay was forfeit
ure OF membership, and large
pay assessments which would amount TO all they
could hope TO receive b. ok again. Mr.. Hawkins
closed with an argument showing that the re-
ownership would work injury to the appel
liant or TO the order III the supreme Court re.
verses the ruling of the trial court the order
reverts into the hands of the very men whom,
the appellants counsel said, the members want
TO Dust from the dishonored trust IL the receiv
ership is sustained the money OF the order will
be returned 10 the $4,000 members. aud they
still can reorsanize IL their profession so TO do
shall then be their desire.
Mr.. Charles w. Smith, OF counsel fos appel
lants, closed for his side OF the argument
Having only thirteen minutes OF time. he SUBJ
United his discussion OF the authorities In tho
form of n brief. His oral argument was devoted
70 showing that the order was not insoivent and
to discussion of the Golden Line Wisconsin
case. in which he showed that the court held
that Ii dealt with the sufhciency OF the com.
plant, and declared the facts there averred as
not sufficient for the appointment OF a receiver:
He also referred the court TO the orders printed
rules, as providing a way for private redress OF
wrongs in other methods than TO COM plain di-
rectly TO Somerby.
This closed the oral argument, and the court
arose