Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-01-28
COIN BROS ASSIGNMENT.
Something Unexpectedly Sprung ID
Chief Justice 2ane'S Court,
TO SET ASIDE An ATTACHMENT
II Will Come up for Hearing on Mon.
day.-Jhe Alexander Bubble.-
Civil and Crlininal.
TO SET ASIDE AN ATTACHMENT

! lot on Saturday. Tho most import
mt matter was the motjop 10 s,t aside
-,,..,,..., ii, a., ,.,,
M "'''."'o" u" NV" ~
Samuel LORD, Jr., against Conn Bros,
the dry goods merchants OF this city,
WIN assigned last week. The matter
,... ,,,.a.,..,, :, -. ,a.,,,h ,,,
WIS ','o"''a" " '',no ""s" '"
counsel Tor the respective parties, ana
the hearing set for Monday next. His
uonor. nj 1l-aO. nIiourned court
...,,,, 49,, 49,. -,
'n." "o"u"y "io'"'"s, having YUM
pleted the days list.
WHEN WIN. TT aro,.?
Attorney Ogden Hiies again men
toned the matter OF Burnham and Co.
nj nj Va AIcxapd.r. In wbi,b. n.
80, -, :, ii.
aa'', ""n'oo' VI Suns "o'o oon'O'
Iidated. The receiver oil the Alex
ander estate (Mr. II. k. Williams)
recently obtained the judgment OF
the court setting aside inc assign
mont oil lease OF the Alex
nnder residence from Daniel Alex.
andcr to his wife, virtually ON the
ground that such assignment was
fraudulent. Upon that finding tho
court granted n decree dlspossosslng
Mrs. Alexander, and AUTHORIZING tn o
United States Marshal TO take posses.
nj IN OF the promises. A stay was asked
for which expired today or Monday.
Counsel add cd that he appeared In
behalf OF Mr.Alexander who, since the
Alexander block was built, had occu.
Piled n bout thirteen rooms ON the lower
iloor M q homestead for himself, wife
and six children, the latter being all
under age. II tho decree were carried
out. II would have tho effect OF dispos-
sessing not only Mrs. Alexander but all
ths other members Of the family. He
asked that such an order Of court be
now made as would protect Mr.. Alex.
ander's homestead right.
Judge Zane said he should allow the
decree to 10 executed, ana n Mr..
Alexander chose TO intervene no could
do no In the regular way.
cou., ,,os, .ss,o
N'" ""o' "0i"N"hNi'
The case OF Samuel Lord, Jr., OF al,
PLAINTIFF, VI. Louis Cohn ct al., de-
PENDANTS, was the next case called up.
On behalf OF the assignors Attorney
Farley l.. Williams moved TO dissolve
the attachment; and this was opposed
by Attorney Kinney.
After some preliminary skirmishing,
Judge Zane asked MIR. Kinney whether
he was now prepared TO state the alle-
cations Of fraud In the affidavit on
which he relied.
Attorney Kinney-Not yet, but 1
will be- able 10 substA utiale every state
ment, l think. The assignment shows
upon its face that II was drawn up by
the attorneys on the 30th Of December,
1892. That was altered anu tho assign.
ment was finally executed on the 28rd
OF January-twenty-io ur days alter
wards.
Mr.. williamson what do you say
that?
Mr.. Kinney-On the face Of the as.
signmsnt itself.
Mr.. Williams COMPATIBILITY 1t
does not show anything OF tho kind,
and will be sworn u the court please.
MIR. Kinney-rhere IL an alteration,
nevertheless, and have certified
copy to show II. have the assurance
here that the nssignors have received
goods TO the amount OF nearly 5000
pounds through the Union Pacific
uepot since December S0lh, 1892, anu
some goods, oven, since tho assignment
was executed.
Mr.. Williams stated that what coun-
sci referred to was purely a clerica
error In the copying OF the docu mrnt
by his typewriter, rs he was quite
ready to prove, anu asked Mr.. Kinney
op what grounds he based his latter
statements.
Mr.. Kinney said he had been in.
formed that goods were In transit at
the very time tho defendants must
have known that they were insolvent.
Hc WAS not, however, prepared to
substantiate that this morning on nc.
count OF lack OF time.
Mr.. Williams-Upon what fact did
you make tho averment In this All :
davit "that the defendants have
assigned and disposed OF their property
with intent to deiraud their cre..itors?u
Mr.. Kinney-Upon the fact that tn o
original assignment as examined by
me In the office OF the county recorder
upon the day II was filed shows upon
its face what l have already stated,
and upon the fact that these defendants
had made an assignment preierri ng
nearly $35, 900 upon n stock Of goods
that would not figure Mt, as nearly az |
could estimate, much more than
enough TO pay the preferred oreditors,
Mr.. Williams-What do You know
about the amount OF ,tock aud whence
did you derive your Information? On
what basis do you figure your stock OF
goods?
MIR. Kinney replied that he figured
It upon u general estimate. He adj
mitted, in answer to counsel, that he
was not familiar with the dry goods
-. A..