The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-07-03
WESLEY DAVIS AGAIN.
The Creditors File Homestead
ss Suit.
THE CASE CALLED A BLUFF.
What GIeod, Ware & Glsea Say About

What GIeed, Ware & GIeed Say About
fho Matter.
The creditors of Wesley Davis, the
Rossville grain merchant whose down
fall has been fully reported, fled a SEN
Bational suit in the district court shortly
after o'clock last evening.
The plaintiffs in the suit represent that
Davis owes them in the following sums:
J. T. Hopkins, 5000; L F. Studyvant,
5000; William Bond, $500; Jane De
Vinney, $1,025; T. Fl. Emmett, $500;
David Kessler, $500: E. T James, $500;
Calvin Bradley, $3.50; Zach Reser,
$500; G., w. Higginbotham, $500; Potter
Zickafoose, 81 800
The petition says that the Rossville
state bank and its officers were engaged
with Davis in his grain speculations.
That after Davis became bankrupt the
bank conspired to get deed to all of
Mr. Davis property, and that Cashier
Alter advised Davis to fee from the
country to avoid prosecution. The petit
ton charges also that the bank is shield
ing a large amount of Mr.. Davis prop
erty in excess of what is due the bank
for the purpose of defrauding the other
creditors.
For these reasons the plaintiffs ask
that a receiver may be appointed to take
possession of and control of the entire
property of said Davis, as well as the
property conveyed to L B. Alter; that
the defendants may all be temporarily
snjoined from disposing of any
property4AA obtained from Wesley
Davis or in any manner encum-
boring the same: that the amount due
may be ascertained and, as we'll, the
amount actually due and owing the
Rossville state bank, that the convey
ancss. chattel mortgage and bill of sale
to I B. Alter may be set aside and held
for naught; that an accounting may be
had of the property of Wesley Davis
that has come into the hands of the
bank. E. B. Merriam and L B. Alter;
that the property and effects of Davis
may be disposed of by order of the court
and that the court may apportiOn the
proceeds among the creditors pro rata.
j. G. Waters is the attorney for the
creditors.
Gleed, Ware 6 Gleed are the legal
counsel for the bank and say that the
case brought is merely bluff for news
paper effect and will never amount to
anything in court. A member of the
firm said today:
"As this suit of Mr. Waters seems to be
one of exclusively newspaper jurisdic-
ton and is one practically unprecedent-
ed in the courts of Justice, | suppose it
is due to our friends and acquaintances
that we should file a newspaper answer.
The material allegations in the petition
of the plaintiffs. except as to the con-
veyances made to the bank, are princi-
pally facts which are not true. It is not
q fact that Mr.. Alter or Mr.. Merriam ever
at any time were involved with
Mr.. Davis in an option deal, and it is not
true that the bank has ever been so in
volved with Mr.. Davis. The bank has not
conspired with Mr.. Davis to mislead or
swindle his creditors, and this charge is
simply absurd, when we remember the
good reputation of Dir. Merriam and MIR.
Alter.
"Mr, Davis indebtedness to the bank,
every part of it, is represented by good
hard American dollars, which have been
paid out to him over the counter of the
bank, and the fact that he secured the
bank finally for that indebtedness is not
an evidence that he or the bank has done
anything wrong.
"Up to the night that Davis made the
conveyance to the bank and left the
country, it was supposed by Mr.. Merri-
am and Mr.. Alter, and everybody else
that Wesley Davis was just as good as
the United States government, and his
insolvency was just as much surprise to
the officers of the bank as it was to the
plaintiffs in this action. The bank had
a right to take security for its indie bted-
ness, which is as honest a one as was ever
created, and it did So 1t proposes to
fight for its rights 1t is perfectly sol
vent, and so are its officers, and any one
having q claim against it for dollar can
go right there today and he will have
his money laid right out on the counter
for him.
81 would like to further call attention
to the fact that the plaintiffs in this suit
do not have very much confidence in it,
as is evidenced by the fact that they
have commenced a suit in which it is not
necessary to put up a bond as in garnish-
ment or attachment or to lay themselves
open to dollars worth of liability on
account of the suit except for the costs.
They don't care to put up bond for
$4,000 in order to test our right to the
property which Davis has conveyed to
uA"