The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-12-17

Esq, for the objeeting creditors, Judge
Peabody rendered his decision as follows:
The court is called upon by this petit
ion to exercise its discretion within the
limits prescribed by the proceedings
applicable to such cases. Mr.. Ulmer
was elected by q very large majority of
the creditors. Those who elected him
are presumed to have interests such as
he represents. Their interests would
not be prejudiced, by his election as as
sgnee. The votes adverse to Mr.. Ulmer
are very small and unimportant in
amount. 1t is difficult to see in what
respect his election would be prejudice
to the interests of any of the creditors
who have proved their claims. AS l have
intimated hefore, while it is apparent
that other interests exist outside of this
case. we cannot take them into consid-
Grafton. Those interests will be guarded
by other tribunals.
There has been great activity IN this
case in the election of an assignee. 1t
Is not the only case in which similar
activity has been observed 1t is objec-
tionable, and has seemed to me in the
highest degree censurable, casting some
what of a reflection upon the legal pro-
fession. have talked pretty plainly up
on this subject in our court The aetivi-
ties of this case have been apparently in
stigated by the husband and wife, Mr..
and Mrs. Griffin. Their interests, unfort-
unately, seem to be adverse, and the.con
test has arisen from that diversity of in
terest. Mr.. Ulmer has appeared here as
the attorney of Mrs. Griffin, representing
her interests, which are certainly large
and important, as well as the attorney of
large mass of other creditors. The re-
latives of Mr.. Griffin, and the intimate
friends, have represented the activities
of the other side. The testimony pre-
Tod - n1ti nra ON t,n
part of Mr.. Ulmer has d tendency to show
that he purchased for himself, of somea
body else, certain claims against this
estate-not of large amount, but the
claims of creditors OF this debtor. The
testimony is unsatisfactory, vague and
indefinite. 1t has tendency to show
that the purpose on the part OF Mr.. Ulmer
was to secure the influence of those oredi-
tors in this case one of them, at least
was approached by parties representing
the other side. But the inference to be
fairly drawn from the testimony of these
witnesses is, that Mr.. Ulner, on those
occasions, in the presence of his client,
procured these proofs or paid them, neu-
tralizing their effect, If paid, or attempt
ing to get the benefit of votes, If they
were unpaid. 1t is in line with the mani
fest zeal that has been observable on both
sides of this case. Mr.. Griffin has been
conspicuously active in securing the cleo
ton of an assignee, Mrs. Griffin has been,
through her attorney at least, equally
active. / have no hesitation in saying
chat, in reference to the claims in cues
ton, there has been an excess of zeal.
But, on the whole, it falls far short of
such corrupt conduct, under all the cir
cumstsnces OF this case, as would force
me to reject the election, made by large
majority of the creditors, and I shall
therefore overrule the motion and con-
firm the election of MIR. Ulmer as as
signee.