The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-01

cornsrv and there has never been any
intinatlon that they we're not satisfac-
tory this f. tire first tine that these r.
fpgrts were not acceptable. The receivers
are perfecflv willing 70 furnish more de-
tails because We consider ourselves
bound 70 offer fun particulars as TO these
statements.
CART Z understand counsel perfectly.
his statement affords An uDanETvershle ar
glirnent that the court should not allow y
to rest iris way. II these are fair exam
pies Of the reports placed before Master
Carey, ahen MS approval has been notn-
ing more than form
5olfne-But there have been vouchers
flied with every one Of these reports.
Judge Hanford-T understood that the
answer states that the accounts of Feb
r1isry and March. 1895. subsequent TO the
accounts audited by Master Carey. had
been filed in this court last August.
IOline-The statement was made 10 me
by the receivers thar their accounts up 70
April ~ had been filed IN this court.
VIII Not lie severe with Them.
Judge Hanford then made statement
OF his decision Of the care. as follows:
'sThe answer filed this morning seems
70 relieve the receivers from the irpHfa-
finn Of any intentional defiance or the
court. and 7 am not disposed 10 view the
matter in a captious spirit. or with any
inclination
the receivers But IL Was the intention OF
the court that as officers ~ the court,
they should render an account OF their
Stewardship in such a way that parties
interested could scan the matter and ne
enabled to make any objection they might
have on legal ground 70 any item in the
accounts. The orders Of the court are SIM
E,iy IN recognition OF the right OF the par
ties 70 have their business transacted IN
70 Trfr h@t
As long 81 the receivers show a DISPOSE
ton 70 recognize that right. II Is the inten-
tlOu OF the court to give them fair treat
ment-
Instructions Were Ignored.
''7rhe answer. however, Is. 7 think. sub
tect TO some criticism. Among the excuses
given for not complying with the order
OF gepfcmbar 2 or Ming any account at
the time fixed. or even asking for an ez-
tension of time. the answer contains the
statement that the original order appoint
ing these gentlemen as receivers or this
court contained no requirement IN regard
"a accounting. except the clause that re-
oulred them 10 keep accounts. Now. that
Is not a candid statement, II they have
carefully given attention TO the order
= h.ch the court made. The original order
Of the court appointing these gentlemen,
August II. 1873 contains this clause: And
- ~ furtnFf oFIEfeH iilnt Aiif SAsN At-NiNN .
shall retain possession Of the property
and continue IN. the discharge OF their du-
ties aforesaid until the further order oil
this court In the premises, and that they
shall from time TO time make a report OF
their doings in the premises, and IRON
time to time Apply TO this court Tor sutn
orders and direction as they may deem re.
nuisite for the carrying out of the trust
That clause. from the inception Of the ie'
Ownership until October ?. when these
gentlemen were removed. seems 10 have
been entirely disregarded.
''ThAre Is another thing | do not Ike
about this answer. In stating their rea-
sons for res.gning their trust IN me court
for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
they make the statement that they can
not render accounts % the court IN Wash
inRton. or come within the jurisdiction
az the court in Washington. without the
danger OF their being dealt with for con-
tumacy. | think that statement ls I'M
fortunate. II must 10 inferred from il
4hat the receivers we're not able to rem
der proper accounts. or else that tney
we're distrustful of the court. 50 a.strust-
fIi that they stated in advance tnst the
court would not be fair with them and
give them the credit they were entitled
10. II either impeaches their own ad-
minis'ratlon of the trust or 1t is refiec-
rion on the court. one or the other neces-
sarily
All Referred TO Master In Chancery.
However / shall pass such matters by
for the present, and with the view solely
TO securing ne legal rights OF the parties
10 have a lust accounting, ] viii make an
order al th!s time referring the answer
and she annexed accounts TO Eben Smith.
master IN chancery. for examination, and
he will ne authorized to require the pro
luct'on OF the vouchers, 10 hear any OBJ
{ections that the parties may see NJ 20
make. or require any explanation that
may no necessary in order that a proper
auditing Of the accounts may be had. II
the original vouchers are on nle IN another
court. this court viii not assume % inter-
fere With the proceedings and records OF
thai court 20 Require the production Of
those originals. but they must he sub
nifted % the master. in chancery in TINS
court. either by copies or 10y gong where
they are on file As to all Items 10 whlch
the parties wish 20 raise any question,
the master I'm chancery must have an OPP
portuuity 20 examine into their merits
AFTER the court had lin shed, Mr.. Joline
stated that as far As the February and
March accounts We're concerned. x they
were no. hied they would be Il vas the
intention that they should he here. The
order referring the matter to The master
Ia chaucery VII be signed today
The Receivers Answer.
In their answer the old receivers admit
that on August Il. 1905. In the action OF
Philip Y Winston against the Northern
Pacific this court had jurisdiction. ard
that am order mas made 10y which their
reco.vership was extended They deny
Una, upon the making or this order OF Au-
gust "a .ncy entered upon their duties as
receivers of the road. and that rs such
they ta'd possession Of all the properties
Of the company and operated the railroad
svstrui. ou the contrary. they ailegc that
pursuant tn The courts order they became
tNe receivers % tha Northern Eacifc
w-gnta the state Of Washing on. They
than give thc de.alls OF their appoint ment
fn pos states os New York. Illinois. Mime
SOFIA %orsh Dakota Montana. oregon and
Idaho ara toll % The hiiug % tnc suit fer
tsrcs losurs ~ thc second. fhird and fourth
or consolidated mortgages by tho Far
roree' l.osn AMI Trust Company in she
Eastern district % Wisconsin.
DID Not Retain Funds.
The respondents admit that as receivers
fbry received into their possession from
t1,e proceeds ~ tha operation of tbc road
large sums ~ money hat thev deny tha,
tNev retained 10. ~ amy portion of ST. In
thsir possession. cxcert as stated IN N.
answer AMI they further deny that 'D woe
t1tion or the cfdcrs 81 t1e court thes have
fatied ana refused 20 keep account ~ ,hs
s.f0a ~ n,c0r- rr'eivet hv them Ass re-
.rt>.rs er of the money paid GOT hy them
TH.r slieEe thar. on tae contrary. REV
have kraf true ant accurate accounts ~
afl Funds reviewed H9d aashursed
THEE vit rsr~lta~= furfacr ailcse fhst In
A8Eae. f>a5 fre Northern Favinc rornFa-
rr Sled petition EN- y1's court 10 varats
tne v-ifr aHPN,uring chem as receivers
thst uor1 tho HNoc cf this p.-
.tnu fs- ~otr. dirs-ted tae ~e-
>.a....t-ra ANA rhe F'rrrf~-s' loan