The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-22
CHARGES WERE FOR EFFECT.
Contrasting Creditors Put Haley Grocery
Go. I'm u Bad Light.

The appointment o< F. s. Runkei as re-
ceiver OF the Haley Grocery Company at
the suit Of sehwabaeher Bros. a. Co.
proves to have been tho outcome OF a
contest between that firm and the Boston
National bank for control OF the assets.
and In the effort to make a strong case
for the appointment OF N receiver the
sehw abachers cast reflections on the off,
GERS Of the Haley Grocery Company which
appear frofn the iatter's statements to
be unfounded Though these allegations
sere based In part on entries IN the com
sany's books. the officers say that unwar-
RATED differences were deduced from
them.
As an example they point cut that the
Tscaifer who had never been in the store
estimates the value OF the stock at $s010,
sEea the sheriff's inventory places 1t 81
slS.sa, When the charges became known
% the officers of the company. they
strongly denied any intention 10 defraud
tastr creditors, or any COLLISION with tho
Boston National bank. unless IL be col
laslye 20 submit 10 suit upon just debt
ithout interposing sham defenses. The
following bries statement - the officers
OF the company explains the charges
brought against them. and In their view
faows that the affairs OF the companywere
tn better shape at The time OF failure than
they were when the present management
was run until the very end In an honest,
fair and business like manner;
When III. n. Ward bought the oontroll-
ing interest In the company from J. II.
HUI he assumed "a part payment FOR his
stock 4 debt Of HiirS % the company
amounting "a sass. and a debt OF f. G.
FohlttprH amounting TO over sI.s00. Ward
solJ part OF his stock To ]. r. praddcck
ana j. j. Bushy, they assuming as part
payment for their interests $50 and $500
respectively OF the debts assumed by
Ward. These amounts were charged to
Bfaedock and Rgshy ard credited TO
Ward. on February = Bushy was cred
tied with 500 and Ward charged with ssen.
mus leaving matters in the same condi-
lion as when Husby bought In. As Ward
originally assumed a debt 70 the company
% over ss.Sn. the statement that he owed
s,'S on February Is shows that the dif-
Ference had been paid. In addition 10
.his, Ward paid Hni and fohndorfr over
s~eo deferred payments on the purchase
price OF his stock
The statement that Wari drew ssS In
FEBRUARY for his personal use Is untrue
Aas Fao credited RusSy and charged TO
him accounts for part. and OF the balance
We vas paid on the HilI note and the
feSt vas for acssnats due the COMPANY
that Ward assumed with the consent OF
all the stockholders. That Rraddock
e"@a ths company 500 on February * Is
uae but Il mast he remembered that In
egyiug Ia he assumed a debt % 500
IL Is not true that IN anticipation OF
ue appointment % n receiver the stock
vas depleted by tire sale of staple aru-
sses; on the contrary before and up 10 the
oaie that the sheriff took possession. the
.eA32ny was besh purchasing and sell
e staple articles. and paving their bills
ssa ohlisattons. and the amount of staple
ses1s IN stock AZ the time % failure was
As isEEe as usually carried While e Is
fse tAa' no deposits were made IN the
tSa~ after February -. the cash book
sanss IN what manner the $. 30 received
oSEias shai time was disposed Of ard
asA' u was used 20 pay officers and en-
Ives ~ The company salaries earned by
tassn bat uUrsft
n regard % the sg4s that 81 said ~
ave beea unHccNunse>i for ard never -
ste eosase tato The hands % the receiver.
~aS a. ne otNce-s ~ the company an
NAsed 'hat the sheriff would take aoS-
NSon untu the next day. ard none az
~ N'nc~rs were present when ne levied
ns sxsNcaesos. Ia the confusion following
*Ey many due biljs and snerziora wfsa
- easa items bad pruAablv not Vet been
80 uNon the cash book and this
sies" * "''0seS4 S-s~tV1S'4'