New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-10-07
MORE CORDAGE TROUBLES.
A SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST LA MONTAGUE,
CLARKE & CO.
THEY ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE DISCOUNTED 1
NOTE MADE BY L. WATERBURY, CO., AND
,crn rur ppOCrFDS FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE DISCOUNTED
NOTE MADE BY L. WATERBURY, & CO., AND
Used THE PROCEEDS FOR THEMSELVES.
rh. su,t of La Montague. Clarke & Co. against
L, Waterbury g. Co. for 1898 on promissory
note up before Judge Patterson, !" ens
SunrerAe Court Chambers. yesterday The argu-
nept brought out some peculiar allegations to the
eTact that the firm of La Montague, clarke &
70 had stolen the note In question from f. NJ
Fulton sr had had II discounted ana had appheo
the proceeds to their own beneht.
The story which James NJ. waterbury tens III an
aaidavit which was presented to the court TO SUBJ
..n,,,,a this charge Is in effect follows T.. VI.
Fulton transferred to the firm Of L. waterbury
g. Co his interest in the Elizabeth Cordase 'on'
nany and received in part payment hoh-hesou-
able instrument for s266,6G6 The instrument pro-
vided that the time OF payment was to be EXTENDED
from time to time the property should be dis
nosed Of PAYMENTS were made until the amount
d,o on the instrument was $166,6G6. Mr.. Waterbury
savs that Mr. Fulton came to the firm and asked
for a note for half the amount due saying Una, no
might want to negotiate loan without o'"ei COZ
lateral than the note This note was gi'eh' ana
Mr. Waterbury declares that 1t was subject to all
the conditions OF the former non-negotiapie IN
strument and not to be negotiated without the
oor.ent ~ and ,tice to the firm Mr. Fulton went
to Europe and put the note in sate deposit 'au"
He instructed La Montague, clarke 90 10
coIIect II when IL became due, III waterbury d ~
were able TO pay It, but II not the brokers were not
TO bother them about 1t. Mr. Waterbury alleges
that Mr. Fulton told him that La Montague, Clarke
g. 20 took the note out OF the safe deposit vaults.
and instead OF following the instructions OF Mr.
Fulton discounted it with the Manhattan COM
nanv and used the proceeds for themselves. He
asserts that Mr. Fulton told him these facts. For
these rea sons he alleges that La Montague Clarke
g. Co have no title to the note and no right to
sue ON IT, Mr. Waterbury also denies the assertion In
the complaint that the firm of l.. Waterbury &
Co. is nsovent.
G. Weaver Iober, OF the receivers or the
National Corlage Company. also makes an affidavit
In which he declares that T. VI. Fulton, Jr, told
him practically the same story related by Mr..
Waterbury in his affidavit. Mr. Fulton, sr., is only
special partne- IN the firm Of La Montague, clarke
A. Co. while his son Is full member. The son APP
pears as one of the plaintiffs, while the father does
lot
The contention of the plaintiffs Is that the note
came into their hands for value, ana that tney
have a perfect right to sue on II.
The case came up yesterday on a motion 10 SET
aside an order which the defendants secured 10
extend the time answer, the ground that
they had a good defence 10 the suit Decision on
the motion to set aside the extension was re-
served.
peared as counsel for Mr.. Waterbury, in making
his argument to the court. Eliot Norton, VINO app
peared for the plaintiffs, said this assertion was
ridiculous.