Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-03-15
WALTON C puANs cAsr.
senators Gray and Higgins Arguing It in
the United States Circuit Court Of APP
poals.

| Sch"torsn ray ANA Higgins Arguing IL in
the United States Circuit Court Of APP
poals.
PHILADELPHIA, March 13.-In the
| United states circuit court of appeals,
with Judges Dallas, Butler and Green
presiding, argument was begun to day
IN the case in which United States SEN
ators Anthony Higgins and George
Gray, Delaware, arc pittcd against each
other as counsel.
In 1860, the plaintiff, Charles Rich.
| ardson, and the defendants, Ephraim II
Walton and Francis N. Buck, entered
into partnership for the manufacture of
superphosphate, at Wilmington, Del,
under the name Of Walton, Whann a
90. BY their written agreement the term
OF the partnership was limited 10 five
years, but, without any formal or OK.
press renewal or extension thereof, they
continued In business until July 18th,
1850, when they executed articles Of
dissolution. M. Richardson agreed TO
convey to the defendants all his inter
ests IN the partnership, business and
property, except in certain scheduled
claims and accounts, for 1923, 4SG. IA;
payable, 23,436.4 In cash, 100000 in
the defendants 10 promissory notes,
all dated July 9th, 1885, each for S5. 600
and payable with interest, the first in
three months and the others respects
lively at the end of each consecutive
three months thereafter, and the bal.
ance Of $4,000 on July 9th, 1890, with
interest payable semi-annuaily, secured
by bond and mortgage upon real es.
tate. In pursuance of this agreement
the dissolution Of partnership took place
on july $50, 1855, on which date the
defendants paid to the complainants the
hand money and delivered the specified
securities, and the complainants, in
turn, executed n conveyance to them.
The suit was brought in the circuit
court of Delaware to have the terms of
the dissolution reformed on the ground
0! fraud and duress. The specific allie
cations OF fraud, as contained in the bill
Of complaint, and supported by the tes-
tImony and exhibits on behalf of the
complainant, are that in June, 1885.
While Mr.. Richardson was confined to
his house critically i'll with stroke of
apoplectic paralysis, and at time when
lie was threatened with financial ruin if
he was unable to arrange for meeting
certain commercial paper of which he
was the endorser, the defendants de-
manded an immediate dissolution of the
partnership. In pursuance of this de-
mand terms of dissolution, as stated.
were shortly afterward arranged through
the negotiations of counsel. The amount
to be paid the complainant was arrived
AT by written computation submitted
ny the defendants to the complainant.
setting forth the amount which had stood
upon the books OF the firm to the credit
OF the complainant ON July list, 1884,
ana adding thereto his proportion of
the estimated profits for current year.
$5OOO0." The evidence shows, IL ia
alleged, that the negotiations were
carried on upon the basis of u constantly
repeated assertion by the defendants:
that the profits for the current year had
not been and could not be ascertained
as yet from the books, and IL was there
forenecessary that an estimated value
should be assumed. The bill then charges
that the respondents knew, as early as
tho 10th of June, 1885, that the books
showed that the estimate of profits of
July LIST, 1886, should be at least double
tne Igures stated by them in the basis
OF settlement, and the complainant's
testimony showed that on or about the
10Th OF June, nearly Il month before the
agreement OF dissolution was executed,
and considerably more than month
before It was carried out, an accurate
make up had been obtained from the
books, showing that the profits for the |
year were approximately $1G1,000. The |
knowledge OF these facts did not come |
to the complainant until November,
1852. The bill of complaint was filed |
October 18th, 1888.
The answer of the defendants denies
the alleged facts constituting the fraud,
and, by way Of justification, makes seri.
GUS and sweeping charges against the |
complainant. Voluminous testimony was |
taken on both sides. The lower court |
dismissed the bill as far as the main |
charge and prayer for relief were con-
cerned, but ordered an accounting |
before a master to ascertain how much |
was due to Mr.. Richardson on account |
OF collections made by the defendants of |
certain scheduled accounts, which, by
the agreement of the dissolution, were
to be collected by the defendants and
the proper proportion turned over to the
The defendants answer
alleged that but S699.30 were due Mr..
Richardson on account of these collec-
tons. he master reported that the
amount due the complainant was 81 500,
which sum the court awarded. Mr..
Richardson took an appeal and the case
came before the appellate court.
Attorney s. s. Hollingsworth and
Senator Higgins appear for the com.
plainant, and Colonel Benjamin Nields
Of Wilmington and Senator GRAY for
the defendants. One of the counsel
stated that there is yet about $50 900 in
volved in the dispute. The argumen.
concluded this morning.