The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-12-11

III oho udbuIo OF gam DllnS OpGfdblOHS UuG
We're valid and legal.
Mr.. Cook said that as on the second
que slton the legal insolvency OF MI. Emery
the petitioner would put in Mr.. Emery
letter of July 90 1888, to the Chapman
Banking company, i'll answer to their
demand on him for money to pay for
these stocks in the hands of Talntor q
Holt, in which he says he has lost every
thing, that if the notes are enforced he
must go into the street"
This was practical declaration on the
part of Mr.. Emery that he was lnsolvent.
Septem Der 16, 1893, although large
balance then existed against him on the
books of the Chapman Banking COM
pany, he wrote and asked them to SEND
him check for the coupons on the
bonds which they held as collateral,
saying he was out of money and needed
funds. He had two notes go to protest.
one October 10, and the other Novem Der
IA, 1888. We claim that Mr.. Emery being
a trader and these two notes having gone
to protest in the ordinary and regular
course of business, he never having he
fore that time made any claim in rela-
ton to the iilegality of the notes or that
he had any defense, it renders Mr.. Emery
legally insolvent
We shall show that in July, 1858, Mr..
Emery conveyed all of his real estate to
one Charlotte Emery, and on the very
day that this petition was filed he took a
deed from Charlotte Emery recovering
portion of it She still holds by the
first conveyance the homestead of Mr..
Emery. We say that these two convey
ances show one of two things either a
fraudulent conveyance in July for the
purpose of defrauding his creditors or
else the last conveyance to him was
made for the purpose of enab ling him to
resist the petition in this case
~, Cd NJ law II
setting forth other occasions and other
ways in which Mr.. Emery, as he claimed,
had confessed to his insolvency.
Cullen G. Chapman, of the Banking
Company was the first witness called,
and was examined by Mr.. Cook. He said
that all told he and his firm had bought
stocks for, four persons. The first case
was that of Gorham gentleman, who
gave small order, held the stock for
some time and then sold out at a
profit. He then gave another order, and
was told that he could not buy small
lots to advantage, and that it. would be
better to buy 100 shares at a time. The
gentleman saw Mr.. Emery and he
called at Mr.. Chapman's office. Mr.
Chapman said that as they received the
orders they transmitted them to Taintor
& Holt, of New York, by wire or letter.
He submitted a statement of stock tran
sactions on account of Emery.
Hon. George S. Soldiers objected, and
asked for the books.
Judge Symonds-You shall have them
at 3 o'clock.
h SC Mr. Ghonr,o
said that after each stock transaction
his firm received advices from Taintor
& Holt, aid that in every case Mr..
Emery was at once notified. Of his own
knowledge the witness could not say
that Taintor & Holt are memberss of
the stock exchange of New York, but
so believes. The first transaction was
S172.72 profit made by Mr.. Emery, and
it was paid to him.
Judge Symonds offered to the witness
for Identification, and as proof of the
general course of business the report of
the actual TRANSACTIONS on the stock ex-
change. Judge Symonds was asked by
Mr.. Chase if he held that the adviues
were proof of actual transaction
Mr.. Seiders said there was as a matter
of fact no reference made there to MIR.
Emery. Judge Symonds said that it is
commended and will be shown that Mr..
Emery was immediately advised of every
transaction.
Judge Peabody admitted the letter of
advice, as showing the faco OF business
transactions at the given dates The first
letter of advice received from Taintor &
Holt was exhibited to the court. In
reply to question put by Judge Sy-
monds the witness said that Mr.. Emery
knew that the stocks were bought of
Taintor & Holt, but did not always
know from whom they bought the stocks
:. In some instances Mr.. Emery saw the
letters of advice sent from New York.
Judge Symonds suggested chat the New
York letters of advice showed actual
transactions, and that they also showed
the understanding of the banking house
| that purchases had been made for Mr..
Emery. No matter what Mr.. Emery
thought, in order to make it a." waiver
stand that there is to be no actual tran
saction, no buying and selling, but only
a settlement OF differences.
Mr.. Soldiers argued that the only pnr-
chase made was by the Chapman bank
ing house.
Whatever NewYork purchases were made
were on the account of the Chapman
1SoihihS OcAtPohJf etAAN oAActo oASAS We
no actual delivery OF the stocks to the
banking house for Mr. Emery. The let
ter of advice was admitted as showing
some stock transactions att the date
named on account of the company. The
first letter of advice showed that so
shares Of stocks were bought by
Taintor & Holt, on the account of the
Chapman Banking Company. while only
25 shares were bought by the Chapman
Company for Mr.. Emery Mr.. Chapman
explained that the other 25 shares be-
longed to Mr.. Emery's associate.
Mr. Cook offered in evidence letter
from Mr.. Emery to the banking company
ordering the purchase of certain
stocks, and indicating the COL
lateral to be held by the company.
Mr.. c. c. Chapman was asked
| if the order was filled, and replied that
| it was He was then asked if the order
was filed through Taintor & Holt, and
replied that it was. Mr.. Cook here
offered various business entries, letters
| OF advice, ETC., concerning the various
purchases made. The documents showed
| quite a wide range of stocks bought
and sold. These letters of advice some
times covered stock transactions of
| other parties, as well as in behalf of Mr..
Emery. Mr.. Chapman pointing out in
l. II Il. T.,