The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1897-08-13

ClIU'u 10 MAKE more IMAM CufSOiN eN-
animation of the business, though |
urged him to do so. BY so doing. he for
ever estopped himself from going be-
hind that settlement, no matter ON what
plea. Since that date | have made no
effort to preserve vouchers for transac-
tiOns prior to that time, AS | had Mr..
Walls statement to the correctness of
everything up to July rs, 1894
As the years passed. | determined TO
end the partnership, and in September
last | notified Mr.. Wall that it must
close with the present year. Later on,
assured him that would not alter my
decision. From that time on, our rela-
| tiOns were strained.
In January, he asked me to let him
have the books. did so at once. Soon
! learned that he was writing to every
patron whom we had ever had, asking
with reference to the amount of his aC-
count. All this time he had not pro-
posed that we meet for a settlement.
Two months later, he asked me if |
considered the settlement of 1894 as a
settlement, and expressed his dissatis-
faction Herewith. | told him | knew
of no reason why it should not be so
considered. He then accused me of
having defrauded him in that settle
ment. An angry interview followed.
L
derstanding that, in the event we could
reach peaceable adjustment of our af-
fairs, | would 90 into an investigation
of the business with him from the be-
| ginning, August 1886, but that if mat
ters were carried into the Chancery
| Court, | had no concessions to make.
This was agreed to, and in our effort to
settle, was called upon to show vouch-
ers for every transaction from 1886 on.
In this settlement, l also agreed
to concede additional collections
which had not been entered upon
the books. | have not the slight
est doubt that much of this amount was
collected by Mr.. Wall. Most of it was
collected by me and was, through over
sight, omitted in making up the record
of the business. In agreeing to add
these amounts to those previously en-
tered on the books, stated and wrote
on the books that | was sure much of
this money had been collected by S. V.
Wall, and that | was willing to admit it
as additional collections simply for the
purpose of bringing to peaceable close
our business. AS the bOokkeeper
recognized also the justice of my hav-
| ing to suffer, on account of my negli-
gence. Mr.. Wall was very ready to
recognize everything that was to his
own financial interest, but when it
came to consideration of questions
that showed errors of omission which
would, if corrected, be in my favor, he
refused. This broke off all efforts at
settlement between us. / told him that
| would arbitrate all questions at issue.
He agreed to this. We chose three ar
bitrators, he having named two of them.
Within ten minutes after signing this
agreement, drawn by his own lawyers,
he repudiated it and wished to name
other arbitrators. l agreed, and we
chose three others. The paper was
signed and | wrote a duplicate of it and
sent it to him. Within an hour he came
to me, demanding that we undo what
we had done and choose still other arbi-
traitors. Eventually, other arbitratOrs
were chosen, and to them all matters at
issue between us were submitted. These
gentlemen, after long and patient in
vestigatiOn, made their award, and,
though much disappointed at their find
ings, accepted their award in good
faith, and have settled with Mr.. Wall
on that basis. No matter what / might
think, certainly should not cavil at
their conclusions, after having agreed
to perform whatever award they nigh t
make. In opening these dead issues,
Mr. Wall has violated the agreement
between us, and has vitiated the effect
of the award, except in so far as he has
profted by it financially. have not a
word to say that reflects on the decision
of the arbitratOrs, but | do claim that
Mr. Wallis extreme positiveness on all
questions between us where there was
nothing to go by save the evidence of
ourselves was materially to his advan-
tage. How much Mr.. Wall relied on
memory to the exclusion of ddtd was
shown in many cases where he denied
having received money charged to him,
and it was then shown most conclu-
sively that he did receive it. There
were many items of this kind, but many
others where | had to lose the amount,
simply because of my inability to show
that he did receive it. All through, Mr..
Wall has allowed me to receipt for all
tuition bills, and, as result, he has the
advantage in every issue.
| instance another class of entry
where Mr.. Wall thought he had ground
tor challenge. In May 1898, | bought
the building in which we had been
teaching. Prior to this we had paid for
it rent of $4,000 per year The build
ing was in an incomplete condition, and
Mr.. Wall and l had agreed that it
should be sold to pay debt on it, and
that the purchasers should make the
necessary additions and we would pay
property was sold and was bought by
me for myself and not for the firm OF
Val and Mooney, as Mr. Wall charges.
| made the repairs and improvements
agreed on, and charged the firm $350.0C
per year for property that was costing
$392.00. Mr.. Wall plead the original
contract of $4,000 per year with the
Battle Ground Academy stockholders,
and on this plea secured deduction of
10000 from my charge for rent.
In this connection give letter from
Rev. j. A. McFerrrin, of Goodlettsville
at the time resident of franklin:
GooDLETTsvILLE, Tenn, May %, 1897.
Mr.. w. ID. MooNEY.-My Dear Brother:
! My recollection is that we had meeting
in the National Bank of Franklin at which
you and Brother Wall were both present,
and you made proposition to us that if we
would make certain improvements, you
would increase the rents sufficiently Ia
justify us in making them. Just what
amount that was | do not recollect, but
! think IL was nearly rs much more as you
were then paying (Which was $780, Mr..
Wall gave his consent to your proposition.
End. When 1t was determined to sell the
property 1t was understood that you were
to bid on it. | asked you, II you bought it,
were you going to buy 1t in the name 0f
Wall and Mooney, or if you would buy it
in your own name. Your answer was: II
! will buy it for myself" This was under
| stood by me before the sale took place. |
| so understood on the day of sale, and when
| indorsed your notes l understood that
you were the sole purchaser, and | thought
! everybody so understood.
Still, Mr.. Wall claims that l was to
! buy the property i'm the name of Wall
and Mooney. | never heard of any
such agreement until the present con-
/ trOversy arose. He did not even sign
| one of the notes for the purchase