Evening journal., 1896-01-21

n. ssInniok WIN Have His Inning on
Thursdav.
Chsnoollor Nloholson's busy day this
week will be Thursday, His Wksle time
will probably bs taken up la hearing tive
WilninEtou cases which have attracted
considerable attenticY
One 10 that Of Ge. % B Mlnulek vs.
Mary A Merritt q complainant is
eudsavsrlng 70 cen p.l Mrz Merritt 10
transfer TO him for $50 600 the Merritt
House. at Front aud French streets,
together with its geod will and fixtures
He alleges that she sgrsed 70 do 20.
through bis agents, Sutton % and
accepted 500 In part payment TO blnd
the contract Subsequently sac refused
TO carry cut her bargain, more advan
tsgeous fer having been received from
Alexander B Maxwell. Of Middlotowu,
be agreeing, through z R Cochran. Jr.,
20 pay $22 600 for the p'aos MIN
nick sent the &ie 900 TO Mrs Msr
rtt three diiferant times aud sh8 refused
20 acoept TO-
She declares that fever contract
WAS gotten from her it was accomplished
by fraud aud through her own mental
and physical weakness, she having been
hiok for some time prior to the date Of
the alleged contract She denies that
she ever knowingly contracted to sell
the property 60 Mlnnick and asks the
chancellor 10 30 declare and 30 dissolve
the order which NOW restraina hor from
taking advantage OF other ard more
advantageous offers Harry Emmons
aud ex Senator Higgins will represent
her In the argument Minnick's solicitors
Id Nl.lI 4 UI a
Il Is barely possible that settlement Of
this ease may be effected 70 morrow
morning. but II is not psaitivo by any
meang.
Next on the list comes the Injunction
suit OF Alfred l. Anscow va. George
w. and Vlrgio r Alnscow Complainant
charges fraudulent mlsaFPllcation Of
large sum Of money alleged 20 have
belonged to the firm Of rostsuratours,
and further alleges that George W.
AluBoow made a fraudulent transfer Of
his property to Virglo R. Ainsoow, his
wife udge Ball and Edward G.
Bradford will LOOK after the complain
ants interests. William T. Lyman aud
Il a. Ward will appsar In behalf OF the
resoondentH
Yesterday afternoon they 6led the
auHwer OF George w and Ylrgle r
Ainacow with Register IN Chancery
Ferguson IL oovers eighteen pages OF
manuprint. aud gees into ths casa IN is
most minute details
The answer dec ares that the complain.
ant did not al any time demand OF ask
for 8 statemsnt aud settlement Of the
oopartnership. moneys and acc luntH;
neither did defendant refuse any such
demands. IL further AYERS that George
". Ainscow has never wr0nRfully or ia
fraud or otherwlse, misapproprzted or
mlsappliod to his own use money received
by him and belonging to the ooDRrtner-
ship. An overdraft OF $124 90 Oh the
Union National Bank is admitted, aud
that while the bahk account was so
oyerdrawp, delivered further check TO
one L. B. Hand. for $196 20. but deelara
ton 81 made that blame for the overdraft
is solely chargeabls to Alfred l. AinscoW,
inssmuch as In violation Of the agreement
between them. he on and after
December l. 1895, failed aud refused
to turn ever to the copertnerskip
any moneys received by him from the co
partnership business conducted a. No
S02 Market street. AZ the time Of the
overdrafts there was In the hands OF the
complainant sufficient funds Of the Co
partnsrship to have protected the checks
| The allegation Is made that In vislati n
OF the agreement, Alfred l. Alnscow, on
December l8. 1895. collected from Frank
A. Gardner 1865 due the so-partnerahip
and deposited it and the receipts from
/ No 500 Market street IN favor OF bis
Individual account, thereby rsnaoring it
insPplicable to meet demands by
check upsn the partnership. They
deny that eompl inant r'quested them to
deposit funds In the bank to meet the
overdraft, the only demand made being
l from Unisn National Bank. and then
they had not In hand sufficient funds TO
meet this demand. the complainant
having the money belonging 60 the ce
/ partnership and applicable to the de-
mand They deny that the complainant
met the l.. 3. Hand check before the
6ling OF the bill Of complaint, and
respondents declare that ne has never yet
paid The amount.
They dsny that they expended So 000
belonging to the eo-partn0rsklp for the
alteration ana improvement OF the
restaurant prsmises, No l09 East Foarth
street, but admit that 81, $50 "a was so
sxgsnded, bat It WAS dsne for the benefit
OF the co partnership, only 81, 4s9 60 be
ing lei petmaneub uAbuIeas hlu bha
balance Ter improvements Of a movable
character AL ether money expended
belonged solely to the respondents and
not to The co partnership The 500
was borrowed frsm the complainant
individually, and did not come out Of
the firms funds, and as auch he owes It
They dsclars that complainant has
expended 81 9l6 20 Of the hrm's money
In immovabls fixtures and alterations to
his place. No SOP Market street. aud
81 3l6 SO for movable fixtures. together
with So 99s GO In the furnishing OF the
apartments Of himself and his family
For the purpose Of paying portisa OF
the improvement aud alteration oi No.
902 Market street the complainant
secured from George W Ainicbw June @
1894 his personal endorsement upon Q
promisssry note for So 900, which wss
discounted At TIE Unien National Bank
Complainant had the sole uss and boneiil
OF the proceeds Of the note aud It non
remains wholly unpaid sna due Tint
complainant has directed certain Of tbs
creditors OF the 6rm for such expondlt
urss to withhold from the respondents
all statements Of such accounts
Defendants admit the transfer Of th'