New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-02-24
AGAINST THE CLAFLlNS.
BIG SUMS INVOLVED IN THREE SUITS.

ACTION BROUGHT BY Z. NJ MGILLIN AND MARY
u. oNEIII ALLEGING FRAUDULENT REpu-
pIAT1oNs or AGREEMENTS DE-
PENDANTS ASSERT THAT THE
PLAINTIFF DIVERTED MONEYS
To OTHER USES THAN
THOSE STIPULATED
Thsre will soon come to trial In the Court OF
Common Pleas three suits. involving nearly WOO
90 brought against John Cladin Edward r. Eames.
Daniel Robinson. Horace J. Fsrchild and Dexter
" Force who comprised the nrm OF H. Is. Claim
A. Co before II was made IA corporation. The
action in one the cases il for $500 for an ac-
count stated. In the other for H""0 for damages.
and In the third for $500. the value o. some chi
land.
The plaintiff in tho first two cases Is Edward NJ
McGillin. OF Youngstown. OHIO formerly OF cle'"-
land who IL known as the MACY OF the West" In
the former place. When In Cleveland he owned
two OF the largest drygoods stores in that part
OF the country. Gross fraud is alleged In the SUI
for $1,000 The attorneys who will prosecute the
suits are Congressman Foran. Of ohio. Bourke
Cochran and Wales +. Severance. OF this city.
Lloyd Mex. Garrison IL the attorney for the de-
PENDANTS.
The complaint in the action for damages sets
forth that the defendants were interested IN ana
owners OF various drygoods establishments In az
fereni parts OF the country. and that they bought
and sold lands purchased and ran and sold mills
and cattle ranches and cattle and bought and sold
notes. and held and owned bonds In various cor
porations and that they would buy. sell. hold or
deal In any kind OF property that money could
probably be made out Of" The plantn states
that In September. 1855. he was In the drygoods
business In Cleveland and that he was also largely
Interested In cattle ranches In the West. and had
formed and placed stock In these ranches. all these
facts being known to the defendants. In the con
duct OF his drygoods businesses. he says his reia-
tions prior TO September 1888. with John ClanIn
close and confidential.
The story by which the plaintiff alleges that he
cheated out OF his business relates that on the
LIST OF September. 1855 the defendants told him to
sell at once all his interest In the two drygoods
stores in Cleveland promising that they would en-
ter into cO-par;nership with him for the purpose
OF dealing In the trust certificates OF the American
Cattle Company which they said they held TO the
value of s. 2sOrO The defendants agreed to furnish
all the capital necessary to carry the business
and the plaintiff 10 give all his time to the
selling Of the certificates and the improvement and
care OF the property. The profits OF this new bus-
to be equally divided between the plain
tir and the defendants. The price fixed for the two
stores $4,000 and II Is alleged that to mae
Mct;illin sell out the defendants said they would
furnish capital enough to buy all the certificates OF
the trust He s'ys he told to sell at once
even though he obtained no more than the net cost
In New-York. The defendants also represented that
they had two VINO were willing to purchase
the two stores at the appraised value at once. one
Of the being II. l.. WATSON and the other
George y. Fischer. Relying on these representa-
lions. says McGlin. he transferred the stores and
their contents to WATSON and Fischer. and the
plaintiff at started OF 10 inspect the property
of the Cattle Trust. Ia transaction In the GER
unciles before h. left New York on his trip he
says he made $1,000 which went into the POSSESSION
I.f..I md h,t eha
plaintiff says that ne returned 10 New-York from
the Inspection January !. 1889. and made report
TO the defendants. who thereupon "fraudulenty
repudai,al their agreement with him In regard TO
the co-parinershp. they had intended to do from
the beginning" lie also says that WATSON and
Fischer dummies" and not the real buyers.
and that he has never received anything for the
stores
The plaintiff says further that after Sep
TENDER /. 1885. the certificates could have been
purchased for half their value. and after reason
able time could have been sold for double the
purchase price, and that he and the defendants
could have realized $4,000 lie therefore asks Tor
damages TO that amount The second suit grows
out OF the same transactions that are alleged IN
the suit for damages, but is for stated amount,
him ~' on the books Of ciadn & Co FOR ssssc He
alleges that he turned over TO them to form th me
American Cattle Trust two valuable ranches lie
says he has made frequent demands for the balance
Of s25s.oo but payment has been refused hin, him
the defendants were ON the bond OF tho p,a,nt,nn
I'm a suit In Cleveland 10 the extent OF @Wvv'
and that to indemnify them against any possible
loss transferred TO them eighty-fo acres OF
Ing that he be eredited for The amount OF nc" ~
The plaintiffs equity 81 redemption In the land'
should the defendants be compelled 10 pay the bonu
as they did This $1,000 Is part Of the {2ssOp that
IL sued FOR and the transfer of this land forms
the basis OF the third suit which Is brought asnns.
the same defendants by Mary Is. O'Neill. sister
Of the plaintn H. the other two suits.
The O'Nelll sut IL for $4,000. being seven acre.
NJ the land at 1900 She alleges that sns
owned part OF the eighty traer AMI nf