The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-14
IT WAS ALLAPUT UP JOB
That Is What The ChauYln-Pant People
Say Of The Failure.
JUST ANASTY PIECE OF SPITE
The Case Concerning the Attach
ment Taken TO Court and Some
Sensational Charges Made
in the Complaint.

tachment came up before Judge Speer
thls morning on a motion of the company
TO dissolve the attachment levied on the
stock of furniture in the name of the
Omaha Upholstering company, and the
proceedings were somewhat sensational
as going TO show that somebody, evidently
AN enemy of the Chauvin-Fant company,
had been guilty of some underhand work
In spreading the report of their alleged
financial embarrassment.
Chancellor O'Donnell and L. j. Hamil-
ton appeared for the company and Attor-
ney Shelton represented the attaching
creditor. II behalf of the compan ay
number of aft Iavits, letters aud tele-
grams were introduced to show that the
Omaha people had no knowledge of the
SUIT brought in their name, that il was
contrary to their expressed orders, and
mat they did not have dollars claim
against the ChauvIn-Fant company at the
time the alta chment was levied. The
Omaha firm had a claim against the COM
pany for S54 which was paid by draft on
Jan. 81, and the suit for that sum and
about $3.50 in alleged aGs gned accounts
was brought on Feb. 4.
An affidavit by Mr.. Chauvin had at
'ached TO IT a letter from the Omaha COM
pany, IN which il was stated that the conn.,
pany had been informed in Omaha
through collection agency, that the
ChauVln-tant Company was being hard
pressed and SO they asked for the $54. 1t
was gwen and a draft was sent in pay
luent.
The collector was instructed 10 proceed
no farther than to present the account for
settlement, but they were surprised to re-
SeIeve copy OF the STANDARD and a
letter some days later stating that the
Butte firm had been closed OH an attach
inent in their name and on an account
that had been paid.
The Omaha people denied that they
ever brought single claim against
ChauvIn-taDt, or that dollar claim had
been assigned to them, although the
sworn allegations of the complaint
alleged that the accounts had been as
signed Tor valuable consideration.
When the Omaha company heard of the
attachment they instructed their collector
10 have the attachment Withdrawn at
once. They had been urged to give a
bond on attachment and refused to have
anything to do with it.
Joseph Delmel, representing the Ma
tional Parlor Furniture company of Chi
cago, made AFFIDAVIT that he came to
Butte when he heard of the attachment
and wired to the Omaha firm asking If
ihey had authorized the suit and If they
bad purchased a lot of assigned accounts,
kilograms denying both were received
and made part OF the affidavit.
Inc aInlavIt on ATTACHMENT was signed |
by one j. A. Longstaff, as agent for the |
Omaha company, but the Omaha COM
pany knew nothing about Ii and Longstaff |
admits that he was only q representative |
OF the Good Templars' lodge, one of the |
assigning creditors, and who put in a |
claim for one months rent in advance |
and attached on il.
Attorney Shelton filed several counter
afiidavIts to show that the accounts had all |
bnee sent to him for collection an that his
actlon was perfectly Straight aud proper. |
lie submitted letter and telegram from
Snow, Church d Co.. of ON ,ha, repre-
sentaIves of the Omaha Upholsterinr
company, instruciing him to secure the
Iatter's account an bring suit on it. Mr..
Shelton said that after the account was |
placed IN his hands the firm had no right
TO settle 1t without his knowledge. He
also said he had a right TO bunch the
claims OF other creditors and sign the
name of one of them. He was attorney
for the creditors and had authority to as
sign accounts for them. Mr.. Shelton
represented by his aflidavits that the
Chauvln-Eant company did not pay all
their debts as they became due and that
the claims sued on were past due. he
also presented an affidavit from a collec-
tor for the FIRST National bank to show
that the Omaha draft was not paid when |
first sent for collection.
Mr.. Shelton stated that a good bond |
had been put up to indemnify the at
tached company, and if they were
wronged they had recourse by suing on
the bonds.
Attorney Hamilton stated to the court
that the defendants had no fault to find
with the action of Mr.. Shelton, though he |
failel 10 show any authority for COM
the attachment suit in the name |
OF the Omaha company. 5
Mr. Shelton moved Tor a continuance of ,
the hearing to give him time to secure adj
ditional affidavits and testimony, and the
court stated that the proceedings placed
The attorney in a rather bad light. and he
would grant him continuance until the
S3rd. The court presumed that Mr. Shell '
ION had been employed by the Omaha c
irm to look after their acc count, anu that I
hey then settled il without his knowl- ,
edge. ..
Mr.. Hamilton said that the Chauvin.
FAINT company should not be made to suffer a
because oil the treatment of the attorney {
~ his clients. The continuance, however, r
vas granted. O
Mr. Defined stated after the adjourn
nent OF the hearing that before the at I
achment was levied he was Informed by p
! law firm in Chicago, with whom he never c
lad any dealings, that the Chauvin-Fant i
ompany was hard pressed, and the man
Ter IN which the information came to hlm
onvinced him that some one was spread
ny the report with n purpose. When he | h
anne to Butte. after the firm had been =
losed. he examined their books and stock
nj found that the firm was perfectly SOL U
ent at the time the attachment was
made and that their bills were paid as :
hey became due.
Ii IS probably true that some one will be |
cid responsible for damages and il NAV
@ this fact that induces the Omaha conn I
any TO be anxious to disclaim RESPONSE
ility for the attachment.