The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-01-29
HE SAYS THERE WASFRAUD
Judge Hazen Employs Severe Lang
uage in Court
IN TIE SPROAT-DAVIS NATTER.

Tsse Attorneys for w. H. Davis Will
EndeavOr TO Get Mandate from
Supreme Court Dismissing she Re-
ceiver.
In handing down his decision in the
application for arehearing and discharge
of the receiver in the Model store mud
die, Judge Hazen this morning strength
ened the position of the receiver even
more than he has formerly. He denied
the application and in the speech which
he made in doing SO he took occasion to
score the methods of Mr.. Sproat, W. Fl.
Davis and the attorneys who have been
handling the case.
at developed in the evidence of this
case that this $4,000 mortgage was given
to W. II. Davis on January 4, thirteen
days before it was put on file," said the
Judge. sit is a we'll known decision in
forty-sixth Kansas, which says that when
a mortgage holds a mortgage without
putting it on record, and allows the
mortgagor to remain in possession and
carry on the business without a contract
or an accounting between them it is evil
dence of fraud. The facts further show
that notwithstanding this mortgage on
the stock Mr. Davis took another one of
two farms owned by Sproat.
1.-The Symns Grocer company came into
court here and testified that mortgage
500 in excess of its claim was given it.
1t was given a mortgage of 5000 and tes-
titled that the claim WAS only $499 An
other thing that is significant to me is
that among the first mortgages were ones
given to relatives. Af1davits are on file
charging that some of these 30 odd mort
cages were executed fraudulently for no
debt at all, without contradiction. Whole
salers also say that false and fraudulent
i
purchase of goods.
'It is urged that w. Fl. Davis is sol
vent and that he is worth much more
than that $4,000 stock of goods, as a
reason for his remaining in possession.
When he took possession he never in
voiced that stock of goods before hebegan
to sell out of it. l ask what recourse the
other creditors could have when no man
on earth knew what there was in that
stock when he took hold of it? How
were we to find out how much had been
sold or whether he sold more than his
claim if no person knew what the stock
was when he took it?
"The court has tried in every way to
find out from the attorney or otherwise
how much was sold by Mr.. Davis during
the three days he was in possession. Let
me say that the court has been unsuc-
cessful No light has been given except
the statement of Mr.. Davis that he had
given credit on his note for something
over $500. Yet there are affidavits on
file charging that he took in between
$500 and $500 in the three days he
was in possession. 1 do not say these are
true, but it is significant that they re-
main without contradiction. It was suf-
fcient to challenge the opposing at
torneys, but they have not accepted.
Another thing is that while Davis
was in possession, goods were hauled
from the Park Davis Mercantile
company's store to the Sproat stock, put
in there and sold. This shows that the
object was to confuse and middle the
the Sproat stock.
t'There has been considerable feeling
in this matter and criticism of the courts
action. Let me say gentlemen, that when
the court acts it does SO under oath.
1t is bound to do only its duty
without feeling or prejudice, and if this
cannot be done, why the court should
come down off the bench and quit. If
there were to be feeling in this matter, if
the court were to allow itself to sympa-
thize with either side. it would doubtless
be for our home people, because l have
never seen the other people and never
expect to see them.
81 think it is to Mr.. Davis best interest
to have a receiver. If he were to take
mat STOCK ne WOQlQ nave ~ lawsuits on
his hands in 48 hours from the other
creditors"
In his closing Judge Hazen raped
the attorneys who have been persistently
keeping up the fight. 'bucking the court"
after he had decided the case.
Immediately after the decision W. r.
Hazen asked permission from the court
to sue the receiver to replevin goods in
the stock. He did SO in behalf of John
r. Mulvane ana others. Judge Hazsn
refused permission.
The lawyers for Davis now say they
will get a mandate from the supreme
court compelling the discharge of the
receiver.