Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-09-17
AUNTS WILL NOT PAY.
A REMARKABLE CASE ENDED IN
THE SUPREME COURT.
RARE AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE.

appeals.

The most interesting Of the ten decls-
ions handed down by the Supreme Court,
at stanton, last week. was that in the
case Of d. r. Beale & co. VS. II. T. Hail.
receiver, involving as it does, some Of
the elements of a romance
The case comes up from the Hastings
Court Of the city Of Roanoke, but its
beginning may be said to have been in
Gordonsyille twenty or more years ago.
u appears from the opinion, tnaf as
far back as 1872 Mrs. Diana r. BeaIe and
Miss S. G. Sibert were engaged IN
prosperous mercantile enterprise in Cor
louisville. About 1857 they removed to
Roanoke, where they launched a sue
cessfu dry-goods business, which they
still own.
But, in 1850, before leaving Gordons-
vile, they established their nephew,
Arthur L. sibert. in a general merchan-
disc store there, furnishing him money
with which TO conduct the same on his
own account. The opinion of the court
states that young Sibert so neglected his
business that in 1851 his aunt, Mrs. Beale,
took personal charge OF the store, wound
up its affairs, paid off the Indebtedness,
q settlement of young S.berts affairs
showing him indebted to u. Il. Beale 81
Co. In the sum OF $5,25lj0 Tor money adj
yanced by them.
BECAME A WANDERER.
Young Sibert then went West, spending
his time wandering in California, Mexico,
and other places. His aunts, one Of
whom was an unmarried woman, and the
OIL xrrffh
nephew. and felt parental interest in
him, and after an absence of four or five
years they wrote him to come back to
Virginia and make his home, as a son,
with them. This he did and on the 10th
day of May. 1857, he executed his note TO
d. r. Beale & CO., payable in five years.
for $525I50. ihe balance due that firm
upon the settlement of his business VEN
ture in Gordonsvllle. In response 10
their expressed desire, A. l.. Sibert made
his home with his aunt they furnishing
him with board. clothes, and money, and
treating him. in ali respects, as an
adopted son. The business Of ID. r. Bealc
& co. prOspered in Roanoke, about ten
clerks being employed TO conduct its
affairs.
After his return TO Virginia. Sibert re-
formed his habits. and from time 10 time
assisted his aunts in the conduct Of their
business, and, also, for a while, engaged
in the real estate business on his own
account. on the 9Th day of October, 1890.
he became involved in a real estate trons-
action and executed a series Of notes on
account thereof Upon one OF these notes,
for 1928. the appellee recovered JudS-
ment against hia; execution was issued
on this judgment and returned no e.
fects" In January. 1885, interrogatories
were filed by the appellee requiring A. l..
Sibert TO answer the same under oath.
His answer disclosed the fact that he
was the owner Of no estate, except some
articles of slight value. exempt from
levy. He was further required TO answer
under oath. specifically, as 10 his con-
necton with the firm OF ID. X. Beale x
Co and his answer disclosed that he
had no pecuniary interest In the nrm,
was paid no salary by them, and that the
firm was in no way indebted TO him.
Subsequently, garnlshment proceedings,
TO satisfy this judgment, were instituted
by appellee against ID. r. Beale * co.
In this proceeding ii appeared that A. L.
Sibert was not employed by the firm Of
ID. X. Beale a Co.; that he had never
been employed by It; that he received
no salary from it; that he had no interest
in it's profits and that IL was not IN
debted TO him.
CHARGED SIBERT WAS AN OWNER
In June. 1895 Hall. as receiver, sued ID.
r. Beale & Co., charging that the hrn
was composed of Mrs ID. T. Beale ana
her sister. Miss G.. Sibert VINO were with
ont anv business qualifications. and that
their business was I'm exclusive control
of their nephew. a. L. Sibert The
charge further made was that Slbert was
the owner OF the business, which he was
conducting under the name OF ID. r. Beale
q Co. for the purpose or avoiding
the payment of his debts. or that II such
was not the case his services TO the nrm
were worth a large amount, which should
be subject to punishment. 1t was further
charged that he was partner IN the
firm and that his share OF It's profits ana
assets are 1T subject for punishment.
In his answer, Sibert admits that ne
owes the judgment, but states that ms
parents are dead; that he mas no home
save that furnished him by his aunis,
and that while he Is naturally grateill'
they are business-wOmen OF idrse eApe-
Renee and In absolute control OF thelr
business. in which he has no monetary ~
terst whatever. lie says he receives