The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-11
THE WOOTEN PATENTS.
Bought for $1,000 and for
5000 as Assets.

11 LII III
-
Bought for $1,000 and for
$4,000 as Assets.
The first evidence upon the converting OF
the court yesterday morning was the in
production Of one of the New York branch's
letter heads for the purpose of showing the
business there was carried on In the name
or the cabinet company. The mortgage
given by Pierce to r. A. Coffin, as trustee,
upon the sale of the Boston house, was
then read in evidence.
Pierce was then passed to cross-examina-
ton, which was conducted by Mr.. Duncan.
He said he had a general knowledge of the
character Of the stock at Boston, and when
he went to that city he checked off the
items on the bill Of sale with the stock,
sufficiently to satisfy himself that he was
receiving that for which he had agreed to
pay. The attention Of the witness was
called to the attachment suits upon which
the property was sold, and he was asked
what the final results of these suits were
ana IL they were not decided in his favor.
grounds that 1t was not competent to show
q judgment on parol evidence. The de-
Tense said the government had brought out
the fact Of the suits being brought and the
sale OF the property, and they deemed it
competent to show the final result. Judge
Baker said while he doubted the compe-
tency of the parol evidence he would per-
nit the question. The witness said he had
been discharged as trustee in the suits,
and had instituted suits upon the attach
ment. bonds. He said the Schenck claim.
upon which attachment had been made,
route to Boston, had been charged in the
books of the Boston branch against the
cabinet company.
Alfred H. Byrd, the New York attorney
who bought the Pierce and Clark notes,
was then called to the stand. He testified,
or the notes whilA hQ was hao6 Qlarl ",
the office of Robert L. Harrison, a New
York attorney. and that the money with
wards repaid to him by Mr.. Harrison. The
purchase was made for Mrs. William Il.
Coffin, a sister-in-law of the two defend
ants. The only cross-examination by the
defense was to show that auction sales of
notes and paper held as collateral were
frequently had under the laws Of New
1. v. Horton was the next witness called.
He resides in this city. Previous to last
Wooten Office Desk Company at Richmond
He was manager Of the Wooten Desk Com
company. Before the sale it was MANAGED
by w. D, Spencer, his daughter. A. z.
Lynch and one or two others. The sale
was made to the cabinet company In June,
1892. The consideration of the sale was
SS,423. OF this amount s6,43 was for mer-
chsndise and 1850 for patents, good will
and miscellaneous matter, such as printed
matter.
Mr.. Kern-what amount was paid for the
Witness-I don't know.
Mr.. Kern-Now, did the Wooten company
own any patents or merely the right 10
The witness said he thought the company
virtually owned the patents. but there had
been some controversy as to the ownership.
He said the company paid Wooten a roy
atty for the use of the patents. The patents
had but seven months to run when the
sale was made. The terms of the sale was
81. 500 cash. the balance in six notes of equal
value. payable one each succeeding month.
He was asked II he was one OF the incor-
porators of the company. but said he did
not know. He was informed by
=. b. Coffin that he had been elected sec
rotary of the company. and acted as such.
He held no stock In the company. He said
he received Instructions from p. B. Coffin
to make certain entries upon the books of
Tie letter in which, these instructions
were given was read. 1t was from p. B.
made for the purpose of making a good
showing to the commercial agencies. The
entries made under these Instructions were
as foilows: Tools and patterns, 81, $50; pat
ents, profit and loss, $50, us; royalty on pat
ents for seven months. SIS; capital stock,
$50, 1000. He testified that the patents valued
at over $50, coo were the same for which the
on4pany had paid less than 81, $50 and that
they expired in seven months. He said he
did not know whether the capital stock
had been paid; 1t was not issued until Au-
gust of 1893, after the appointment of the
receiver for the cabinet company. Letters
were introduced showing the correspondence
between the cabinet company and the wit
ness concerning the issue of stock. He said
why the cabinet company assumed to die
tate the entries to be made in the books OF
the Wooten company. The witness testified
business the cabinet company drew upon
the Richmond concern for sS,35SsO. Then
had passed between the cabinet company
and the Richmond branch was read and
related to drafts drawn by the cabinet
ompan on the Richmond company. The
substance Of the letters was that drafts
were to be accepted by the witness as the
secretary Of the Wooten company and
would be returned to the indianapolis Ma
tional Bank and held by it. The contract
read In evidence.
The witness then said. in answer to ques-
tions, that he did not accept the one share
Of stock sent him at the time of the issue
Of the stock of the Wooten company. He
said he informed the cabinet company, by
letter, OF his refusal to accept the stock.
The stockholders of the Wooten company
were T. A. Coffin, 28S shares; P. y. Coffin,
25l shares; John M. Roberts, l share; A. s.
Mr.. Horton testified that he never at
tended any meeting OF the directors as sec
such meetings. he said all letters received
by him from the Collins In relation 10 the
Richmond business were signed by them as
officers of the cabinet company. The same
was true Of letters received from Reed.
He said the total transactions between the
Richmond company and the cabinet COM
rany were $500. There were never any
large amounts due the cabinet company
from the Richmond company. Under the
terms of the contract the goods sent TO
the Wooten company were not TO be paid
for until they were sold. The witness said
the largest amount owed to the cabinet
company at any one time was on May /,
1893. when the Richmond concern owed
50. 462. This. he said. included the stock
on hand and unsold which had been re-
ceived from the cabinet company. The wit
ness testified that on Aug. p. 1892, the
Richmond concern owed the cabinet COM
pany $S.35S.90. which likewise Included mer-
chandise received. he then specifically de-
MED any knowledge OF paper OF the Wooten
company amounting TO 1854 which found
it's way ints the bank within one month
after the Incorporation of the Wooten COM
pany. He also specifically denied all knowl-
edge Of various drafts subsequently drawn
on the company and accepted by the Cof-