Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-26

t,st fhe said former officers did mol
cease thcir opposition TO tic Efforts OF
.aid bank to collect their sale. tndchiel-
ncss to same ind that ri.ey often spoNe
Of the affairs Of said bank in the mos,
dstAraging terms. and having periorineu
fhr duties Of officers of said hank Tor u
great length of time, the reports Whlcn
They circulated against its credit anu
standing were extremely damaglns' hhu
that same preventd many people iroh
4. fg banking business VITA sAiu
hank. WHO had Heretofore been Gus
tJLer- and deposiiors of said bank. nhh
prevented others who might nave pe-
come customer Of said bank and deposl-
tnis thereof, from THANKSGIVING Il pahk-
ing business with same bank.
That had said former officers, me pres
iCtnt and vlce-president paid their uepts
owing to said bank Mt maturity; as VI
good faith 10 said bank tley should nave
done. that the sud bunk would have nad
available funds and could nave con
Quoted. and wonld have done so, saie'
II lot profitable. banking business
Respondent further shows but Tor tne
failure Of the said two former officers
to pay their said indebtedness TO sNld
bfrk. the same would not have suspenu-
ei
This defendant further slows that ~.
| P,rtwOod was director In SAM Danh
| nj the time Of its suspension, anu lot
considerable time PRIOR 10 snli sus-
| rersion had been such director, aud that
| hr Is ia this WAY .chArgeable with the
| failure of said bank and the PRIOR con
| diet thereof, which be now sets t2rlt
bis e ha IN ts ss he ca @St. hat afer
the pleas of reoonyeution and non est
| fictum. as aforesaid. and the SANDER OF
| tln' reputation of said bank, as aiotc-
! slid IL did but little business, as was
the natural, result, but that sad defend,
| ant, with his co-defendauts. Page anu
! lLckett. have honestly used every ei-
fort within their pGYer to roerce a pay,
ment of the indebtedness due to SAID
| VI nix by its former officers, hoping thnt
Wien it did so 1t could reopen q bank
Ing business that would make a proht
This defendant admits, that IN A. ~
1892, he was. 10y vote of the stoek-
folders Of said bank, at a regular meet.
ing thereof, elected director in said
lank. and was afterward ut tie same
tire with his co-defendants, A. j. Luck
ott and X. NJ Page. elected respectively;
rr. sident, vice-presidcnt aud cashier OF
siid bank. us charged In said bill; This
defendant would, however, aver that at
$, id meeting of stockholders the said
y Portwood was elected under the same
circumstances, director of said bank,
but he failrl aud refused to qualify as
director OF said bank and gave as his
reason for so doing, that his stock had
letn Hypothetical by lin, and that he
was not. therefore, eligible rs Il director.
aad that many Of the plaintiffs,
vi ose names are. mentioned In
said bill, gave their proxies to
In voted at said meeting. to
Il. NJ. Page, with power Of substitution,
ard that said Page substituted Robert
| Mozart. who dulv cast their votes for
said stockholders for this defendant. and
HAT. In this way, the said parties par
Z a. 4 A 4. -.
Respondent further shows that whlr
some of the stockholders IN said mect-
lag may have, and did vote against his
e.ection, that there was not nj snid
W,tting any open protest made against
his election as director of said de-
frlrant bank but respondent shows that
he received s2nS ont OF 1920 votes rep
rceented in said meeting. and that II
rny of the plaintiffs protested
against this defendants election
u, director Of said bank or AS It's cash.
,rr: their protests have never bean FLEA
with the records of said bank. aud he
Il rclined to believe. and does and so
ch rges. that they did il secretly and
pii,ately ON the streets md NOT To those
To- whom n protest might be efHcacious
Respondent shows that said Robert
| NJ, Cart. netting for said plsjntiffs 1v.hos,
roxies are heretofore attached nj soi1
, meeting of stockholders, rs aforesaid
end his vote md TINT of all of pl0in
tilTs aforesaid. whose proxies are annex.
ed hereto for this defendant, and ycul
r,spordent hcieyes, and AYERS
/, | thst they are. or ounlt TO he
Iuf son of this defendant's occupancy OF
tl,r Office OF a director of snid hank.
! Respondent further shows that II /,
: irt true. as charged In said bin. thai
, !. NJ Page has dictated TO. dominated
! or controlled a majority of the dircctoi,
i / e A. Cd,