The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-12-11
WILL THEY Be IN CONTEMPT?
MeSSTS. Epstein & WannbaCher Ordered
to Pay Money Into Court.

Judge Falligant Grants an Order Re-
quiring the Two Members of the Firm
to Pay into Court About $4,000,
Which the Jury Found to Have Been
Illegally Withdrawn From the As
sets - The Money Ordered Paid at
Once, and Failure to Do SO Would
Constitute Contempt Of Court.
It seems that the final decree of the
superior court in the Epstein & Wann-
bacher suit has not brought an end to
that litigation.
The matter came up in a new shape
yesterday before Judge Falligant. The
jury which tried the cases of Roykin,
Sedden & Co, of Samuel Herman and
others against Epstein & Wannbacher
brought in an interlocutory decree in IA
Yor of the plaintiffs. and one of the ques-
tions asked was whether the jury found
that any of the funds and assets of the
firm had been wrongfully withdrawn by
either member of the firm or anybody
else.
The jury found that so. 7S7.75 Of the
firms assets. less s6552, which was ac-
counted for, had been wrongfully with
drawn. The jury found. from an exami-
nation of the books and from the other
evidence that S. J. Epstein had withdrawn
81. 124.39 from the assets and that G. Wann-
bacher had withdrawn $6,O5lS7.
The suit having been finally decided by
the refusal of the supreme court to grant
a new trial on any of the questions at is
sue, Messrs. Walter G. Charlton and r. r.
Richards, attorneys for Boykin, Sedden &
Co, asked the court yesterday for an
order compelling the two members of the
firm, Epstein and Wannbacher, to pay
to their receiver, Capt. John r. Dillon, the
foregoing amounts, which the jury found
had been wrongfully withdrawn.
The granting of the order was opposed
by Messrs. Garrard, Meldrim and New
man, attorneys for the defendants, on the
ground that the matter should come up
under the act of 1892, passed just after the
celebrated Ryan contempt case in At
lanta. This act provides that before a
defendant shall be adjudged guilty of con-
tempt, after having been ordered to pay
money into court under receivers bill,
the question as to his ability TO do so, and
as to whether the money was taken into
his possession should be passed upon by
a jury.
The attorneys for Messrs. Boykin, sed-
den & Co claimed that the question
should not come up under this act, as it
| had already been passed upon by jury
before the act of 1892 was made a law, and
that the jury had already decided as to
the ability of the defendants to pay those
amounts, which, it was held, was wrong
fully and fraudulently distracted by them
from the assets of the firm. They held,
therefore, that they were now entitled to
an order demanding that Epstein & Wann-
bacher pay at once into the hands of the
receiver the money thus fraudulently alb
stracted from the assets, and that If the
money was not paid on demand they could
then determine what steps they would
take, whether contempt of court proceed
ings or otherwise.
Judge Fallgant it seems took this view
of the case, considering that the matter
had already been tried by jury and had
reached a final decree. He granted an or
der requiring Sigmond ]. Epstein ito
turn over and deliver to John r. Dillon, re-
| ceiver heretofore appointed by the court
the sum of 81, 12439, found by the verdict
of the jury and judgment of the court to
have been withdrawn by him from the as
sets of Epstein & Wannbacher, and to
be wrongfully and fraudulently withheld"
and a similar order requiring G. Wann-
bacher to pay to Receiver Dillon forth
| with $6,051.37, withdrawn in a similar man.
ner from the assets of the firm.
The order required the payment of these
amounts at once. Now the question is
what will happen if the money is not paid?
The fact that jury has passed on the
case puts it somewhat on the same footing
as was the Ryan case before the act of
1892 was passed. 1t is understood that de-
mand will be made for payment as soon
as the defendants can be found. 1t is said
that Wannbacher is in the city while Ep-
stein is travelling. If they fail to pay it,
when it is demanded they will be in con-
tempt of court, the punishment for which
is usually confinement in Jail. This issue
however, will of course, be resisted to the
end by the defendants, and it remains to
/ be seen in what shape the proceedings will
next come up.