The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-06-29
Mr.. ROUNTREE REPLIS.
lie Says WGStmOTcllnd'S StataeRtS
Are Untrue.


Between Them.-Judges Specs Brief
statement.-Mr. Crawford sin Say
ing Nothing.
Mr.. Daniel w. Romtree fled h the
United States court a countr affidavit
yesterday to that of Dr. Willis West
moreland published in yesterday sMoRN-
ING News.
Together with the AFFIDAVIT Mr. Roun-
tree furnished a statement to tie press
for publication. Further than Tat state
ment which is as follows, Mr.. Rountree
would say nothing for publicatih:
Since by the publication Of IF. West
mOrelands affidavit it appear that the
press and not the court has ben selected
as the forum for the discussiouof the mat
ters therein referred to, it is proper for
me to state, in addition to THAT l have
already said, that ON hearhg DR. West
moreland's affidavit read 1 aid he couldA
file any affidavit he pleased and l would
make such reply to it as fought proper.
1 that night prepared an iffdavit to be
sworn to and used in the gent DR. West
moreland's affidavit was produced in
court and gave it to my associate counsel.
A copy of that affidavit is hereto attach
ed. also attached a copybf the headnotes
of the decision therein rderred to which
had been rendered before the Clarke bill
was filed, and before Recommendation oc-
CURED between DIR. Nestmoreland and
myself"
The case referred to is a well known
one among attorneys, aad the headlines
are omitted.
SAYS 1T IS UNTRUE.
In answer to the afilavit of DIR. West
moreland, MIR. Rounjree filed yesterday
the following in the Eowena Clarke case:
Daniel W. Rountree being duly sworn de
poses and says that heis one Of the solicitors
for Mrs. Rowena NJ. Chrke in the abovos stated
case. That on Fridiy evening, May 26th
1893, he heard read az at1davit made by Dr.
Willis F.. Westmoreand which deponent was
informed said Westhoreland intended to file
in said cause, an{ in reply to the same
says:
That the statement in that affidavit con-
tanned that depoIent stated to Dr. West
moreland that Judge Speer had told deponent
that there was a 4ue opportunity for an am
bilious young lawyer to make fame and money
by filing bill to put the Central railroad in
the hands Of receiver, and that under his
rulings he would be bound to grant the prayer
of such bill, is untrue
NEVER HAD SUCH TALK
2 This dep0nent says that he never had such
conversation with Judge Speer as is detailed
in said affidavit. The only conversation he
ever had with Judge Speer previous to the
filing of the Clarke bill, even remotely rela-
ting to the principles of this case was as fol
lows! DepOnent was in Macon In connection
with the Troutman will case pending in the
United States court there in which case
deponent was of counsel. Deponent asked
Judge Speer for a copy of his decision in the
case of Hamilton, VS.. Savannah, Florida and
Western railroad Judge Speer stated that
it either had been or soon would be published
in the Federal Reporter. DepOnent asked
him what was the substance of the decision
The judge replied that he had decided that
the purchase and holding of shares in one
corporation by another corporation for
the purpose OF defeating competition
was contrary to the constitution
of Georgia, and void, and that he had
decided the same principles in the Branch
case. The conversation lasted not longer
than five minutes, Nothing was said about
deponent or any other lawyer filing bill
against the Central railroad
BITTER ENRITY BETWEEN THEM.
This conversation deponent may have re-
peated TO said Westmoreland, as at that time
they were intimate personal friends
though subsequently since the latter
part of 1892 the bitterest enmity has
existed between them, growing out Of
certain litigation they had. Deponent was, at
the time, deeply Interested in the Central
railroad situation, Opponents father held
as trustee for deponent and his brothers and
sisters large block of Central railroad stock
and debentures, and deponent was anxious
that proper legal steps should be taken, which
would protect the interest of the stockhod-
ers and others in the Central properties De-
ponent took every occasion to get into com
munication with stockholders in this and other
states looking to the proper remedies to
pursue
WHAT ITMIGHT HAVE BEEN.
Deponent may have said to said Westmore-
land that he had investigated the case re-
ferred to by Judge Speer critically, and felt
almost absolutely certain that Judge Speer
would be compelled to appoint receiver if
bill was presented to him, and that if depon-
ent filed the bill it would make the deponent
reputation and money. Deponent afterwards
met Mr. Perry, and, in talking over the Cen
trail situation, with him, found that he, too,
was deeply concerned in the Central situa-
ton, on account Of the stock interest of his
aunt Mrs. Clarke, whose business was in his
hands Mr.. Perry and deponent both thought
that stakeholder bill should be brought, and
that in view Of the decision rendered by Judge
Speer, that it would be better for
Mrs. Clarke to file the bill in the United
States court. Mr.. Perry stated that he could
not attend to the suit n Georgia, and en-
ployed deponent to bring the suit with him
for Mrs. Clarke
Deponent denies all the allegations OF i'm
proper conduct on his part in relation to said
CIark's suit contained in said affidavit.
Deponent further says that his acquain-
lance with Judge Speer anterior to the fling
of said bill was very slight, having met him
only few times, principally while attending
the hearings in the Troutman will case in said
court.
THE MILK IN THE CoCoANUT.
There is a case now before the court Of
appeals Of this district growing out Of
sale in Atlanta OF property in which DR..
Westmoreland is interested and which
property at the sale was bid in by Mr..
Rountree. The validity of this sale is in
question, the sale having been set aside
by Judge Newman and carried to the