The record-union., 1899-10-11
EE-GREGORY CASE AGAIN.
ESTATE OF MRS. M. e. GREGORY
ALLOWED A NON-SUIT.
The Trial Proceeds as to the Greg
Ory Bros Company and It's
Responsibility

Responsibility.
The case of Mary A. Lee against the
firm of Gregory Brothers Company
and Frank Gregory as executor, OF tilS
estate of Mary A. Gregory, deceaseo'
to recover $11, ,1S0 alleged to be due
on a promissory note made in favor OF
the plaintiff by the old firm of Gregory
Brothers Company, was called IN De-
partment Three of the Superior Court
yesterday, Judge Prewett of Placer
County presiding.
The note, as originally drawn In 1897
was for 80, 600, on which SoUO was SUD
sequently paid before the firm went
through insolvency. The plaintifr al
legged. on information and belief, that
Mary A. Gregory during her hfetime'
was a member of, or was financially
interested in, the firm of Gregory
Brothers Company, hence the suit
against the executor of the estate OF
the deceased. Hinkson & Elliott and
c. r. Jones are attorneys for the
plaintiff, and A. L. Shinn and A. j.
Bruner for the defense.
Frank Gregory, executor of the estate
of his mother, Mary A. Gregory, was
the first witness called. He testified
that he did not comply with the sub
pena ordering him to bring into court
the cash books of the firm of Gregory
BortherS Company, because they We're
destroyed about a year ago and We're
not now in existence. Questioned by
Mr.. Hinkson, the witness said the as
signee of the firm of Gregory Brothers
Company had informed him that
there was no further use for the books.
and for that reason they were de-
stroyed He had not given the present
case a thought when the books were
destroyed, and had no idea that they
might be important evidence in the
suit pending TO show whether or not
Mary A. Gregory had been financially
interested in the business of the old
firm. He said he had no books to show
the financial condition Of the firm in
1S92-3-4, and when the books were de-
stroyed he had no information of the
fact that Mrs Lee intended bringing
suit against him.
L. G. SCHNEIDER, who was book
keeper for the firm of Gregory Broth
ers Company, and who was ap-
pointed assignee when the firm went
through insolvency, was called and
testified that he was in possession OF
books Qedgers) which would show the
financial condition of the firm in the
years mentioned.
Judge Hinkson demanded that the
books be produced, saying that the OBJ
10 min wi
relation to the theory Of the prosecution
that at the time the money was bor-
rowed from Mrs. Lee the firm was in
solvent, regardless of their statement
to Mrs. Lee that it was solvent, and
to show that Mary A. Gregory was
partner of the firm, or was financially
interested therein.
The witness was excused until such
time as he could produce the books.
c F. .Dillman, Cashier of the Ma
tional Bank of D. o. Mills & Co., testi-
fled that in his capacity of Cashier he
had many business transactions with
Mrs. Mary E. Gregory and Gregory
Brothers, He considered that during
the time she was doing business with
the bank she would have been classed
1882 Mrs. Gregory was engaged in the
produce business. In 1882 the firm was
dissolved, and was continued thereafter
under the firm name Of Gregory Broth
ers Company. Witness was a partner
of the firm until 1882, and in that year
he sold out TO Eugene Gregory, Mrs
Gregory guaranteeing the payment Of
the money not paid to him at the
time of the transaction.
Mr.. Dillman said Mrs. Gregory at
times guaranteed the payment of loans
made to the firm by the bank. He fel.
safe in saying she had guaranteed the
payment Of $4,000 in loans. Witness
did not know whether or not Mrs
Gregory had financial interest in the
firm. He had never heard Mrs. Greg
intimate that the former had fnan~
cial interest in the firm, but knew that
she had guaranteed the payment of the
firms account with the bank
Thomas L. Enwright manager for
the firm of Holbrook, Merrill & Stet-
son, was the next witness He was
somewhat familiar with the business
transactions of the firm of Gregory
Brothers Company, but had no knowl-
edge as 10 whether or not Mrs. Greg
ory was interested financially in the
firm.
Fred w Neumann, clerk for S. Gins
berg. who is a nephew of Eugene Greg
ory testified that in 1890 he had busi-
ness relations with Eugene Gregory,
but he did not know whether or not
Mrs. Gregory was financially interested
in the firm. He had seen her in the
store, but never saw her doing any
thing. The business transaction he re-
ferred to was a loan he made to the
firm of Gregory Brothers Company of
So, $50. OF that amount $3,145.30 still
remained owing Witness had never
attempted to get Mrs. Gregory to guar
antee the payment of the debt.
At this point in the proceedings Mr..
SCHNEIDER, assignee of Gregory Broth
ers Company, returned with the books
showing the financial condition of the
firm in 1924, and the attorneys