The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-15


PhiIadelphia--Oth Cases Heard.
A considerable portion of yesterday
afternoons session of argument court
| was devoted to hearing the remarks
Of attorneys i'm the case of Richard NJ.
Blythe. of Philadelphia, against the
Scranton Lace Manufacturing COM
pany a rule to dissolve attachment.
Some of the remarks were of spir-
tied and sensational nature This was
especially true of those made by Jo-
seph p. McCullem, of Philadelphia,
who with A A. Nosburg, of this city,
appeared for Mr.. Elythe. Attorney w.
J. Hand represented the lace COM
pany.
In February of this year William
Creighton, member of the firm of
Creighton q Burch, of New York the
agents of the Scranton Lace Manu-
featuring company, entered up iudg-
mant for $4,000 against tho lace COM
pany, of which he was also a director,
and on this judgment the property of
the company was sold by the sheriff
for about $4,000. the personal proper
ty bringing $1,000 and the real estate,
So 600.
Mr.. Blythe was creditor Of the
company to- the extent of $l1, 200 for
raw materials purchased from him and
after the execution was issued he OBJ
tainad a writ of attachment under the
fraudulent debtors act of 1869. The
matter came before the court vester-
day in the form of a rule to dissolve
this attachment.
SOME STRONG LANGUAGE.
This company was rotten to the
core" said Mr.. McCulem yesterday in
his argument Just think of il, your
honors. Here was William Creighton,
IA director of the company, who had
voted himself a judgment of $4,000
going about with it in his pocket until
it suited him to have an execution
issued on it. When the time arrived
the property was sold and he had Mr..
Taylor, the manager of the plant, APP
pointed receiver. At the sale he pur-
chased certain goods which he after
wards sold to the receiver at a profit
and both of these men in their deposit
tiOnS admit this fact. Then he be-
comes surety on Taylor'S indemnifying
bond and finally a new company is
organized with Creighton and Taylor
as directors. This company swallowed
up all the assets of the old concern.
During the time Creighton held this
judgment and had knowledge of the
condition of the company. Mr.. Blythe
went to see him and was told that the
company was all right. Taylor too,
told him it was all right. Not long
before the crash came Mr.. Blythe
went To New York to see Mr.. Creigh-
ton and was told nothing about the
impending trouble. This very silence
ON the part of Mr.. Creighton Consti-
tuted a false representation calculated
to lull Mr.. Blythe into a sense of secur-
ity."
Mr.. McCullem had many other caus-
tic things to say about the manner in
which his client was treated. and dwelt
at some length on the manner in which
its finances were conducted.
THE CHARGES DENIED.
In his argument Mr.. Hand denied
that any false representations had been
made to Mr.. Blythe. He said that a
good deal of inuendo had been in
dulged in and that suspicious Circum-
stances had been hinted at, but no
facts to warrant the statements of the
opposing counsel appeared upon the
record He denied that there was any
thing in the nature of a scheme in the
r. organization of the company, and
said ii was not thought of until after
the sale, and then only as a means of
II ttrioVing the losses of unprotected
creditors, who were paid 80 per cent
of their claims in cash and given stock
in the new company for the balance.
Mr.. Hand will continue his argument
this morning.
Other cases argued were c. X Nc
MeCham against a. RauSChmayer, rule
for judgment; \. T.. Betterly VS.. ID.
l.. Davis, rule to open judgment; First
National Bank of Towanda VS.. Quack-
"nbush company, rule for judgment;
c. a. Tobias and company VS.. NJ. j.
DavidoW, rule for Judgment; Isaac
Staples VS.. Julius Freedman, certiOrari;
f. Sweet VS.. \. p. Lewis, ct al, rule
- open judgment; in re: petition to
restore deed rule on Flora A. Nichols
t al.
The following cases were submitted:
~ L. Bennett vs.. f. l.. Bennett rule
fur decree in divorce; Esther Jones VS..
L" w. Jones, rule for decree in divorce:
Ida NJ. Shanly VS.. q, NJ. Shanly, rule
for decree in divorce.
The rule for bill of particulars in
the case of S. j. Dickert VS.. Lizzie
Dichelt vas made absolute Judgment
was affirmed in the certiurari case of
Patrick Martin vs.. John Campbell. In
the certiorau cases Of NJ Morrison VS..
Bridget Redik and Mike McClasken VS..
John Shalek judgment was reversed.