The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-01-29

managed Tor the interests Vi Che
creditors.
The attorneys IN the case were
as follows: Messrs Lawrence
Maxwell, of Cincinnati, eX-solicitor
general Of the United States; Judge
Gilbert III. Stewart, of this city;
Frank Durbin, of GAINESVILLE, and
John Ferguson, of New Lexing-
ton, representing the bondholders,
and Hon. II. Booth, Il. j. Heating,
Hon. ID. H. Sleeper, of this city;
George Il. Martin and M. A. Daugh-
erty, of Lancaster, and Morz Dona-
hue, of New Lexington, represent
ed the plaintiff.
Hon. Daniel j. Ryan was also
present at the hearing, represent
ing $4,000 worth of stock belong
ing to parties who occupied neutral
ground, neither favoring nor OPP
posing receivership, but wanted
their interests protected in any
event.
1t was only few minutes after
the hearing of the motion began
that it was apparent that the re-
ceivership would be of short dura-
tion. With the army of legal tai
ent present for the plaintiffs it
might have been possible to weave
the slender thread of evidence Into
rope by which the railroad could
be tied up more secu' ely, but it re-
suited only in hangman's knot
for the receivership. The evidence
twisted itself the wrong way, as
did also one Of the plaintiffs attor-
neys, General John G. Reeves, who
was asked in the midst Of his argu-
lnent whom he represented in the
case. He replied that he was rep
resenting some of the bondholders,
an eastern trust company, and sew
eral other parties. This did not
seem to satisfy Attorney Maxwell,
who repeated his question as to
what person Mr.. Reeves was re-
presenting. The first question took
the attorney by surprise and his
reply was rather uncertain, but
when it was repeated be became
flurried and in second caused
ripple of laughter over the ct urt
room by eXclaiming that he repre-
sented the receiver. BY his own
admission he was barred from part
icipating in the argument, as Il e
court held that the receiver was
not party to the case.
The motion filed by the com
mittee representing the bondhold-
ers stated that the receivership
was granted without notice to the
company and that one of the
claims upon which the receivershlp
was granted was presented without
the authority of the owner, Mr.
William Snider, of Somerset, who
did not want receiver appointed
for the property and made affidavit
to that effect. The statements of
Snider were supported by an affi-
davit of e. M. Barr, of Somerset.
Attorney Morz Donahue, for the
plaintiff, filed an affidavit denying
the statements of Snider and Barr,
and explaining his transactions.
He said that he called at the home
of Mr.. Snider to see If he would
join the movement to have a re-
ceiver appointed for the property.
Mr.. Snider was absent and he en-
made arrangements with man
named Fink to see Snider and II
the latter would give them his as
sistance he (Fink) was to telegraph
the word eyes" to Attorney Dona-
hue, who would be in Logan. On
the morning of the day upon which
the receivership was granted Dona-
hue received a telegram containing
the word eyes" which was signed
by Fink, and accordingly he pre-
sented the claim for $4,000 for pay
ment.
Upon the inquiry of the court il
the plaintiff had any further evil
dence to introduce Thomas J. Keat-
, ing presented cross-petitions in be,
half of Samuel j. Flickinger and
} Bonebrake, who owned over $4,000
worth of bonds, and to protect
their holdings desired that the re-
ceivership be continued. Judge
Slough held that the cross petitions
could not he filed for the reason
, that the parties mentioned had
not qualified as parties defendants
in the case. This ruling let down
= the bars for several of the attorneys
to step out of the case, and in real
, ity only one remained to argue the
3 matters at variance, and that one
was Attorney Donahue, who repre-
: sented the original plaintiff, Mira
= Hesse. However, the court gave