New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-12
Mr.. LITTLE'S STATEMENT.
BRIEF ABOUT HIS REcETvERsHIP OF
THE woRTHINGToN COMPANY.
HE SAYS HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE REYNOLDS
CLAIM WHEN HE ENTERED INTO THE
COMPROMISE TO OBTAIN


Joseph J. Little yesterday sent TO The Tribune a
copy OF his bref In the appeal from the decision OF
Justice Hatch which charged that Mr.. Lite. as
receiver Of the Worthngton Company had obtained
by fraud insurance policies. which really belongel
to Frank Reynolds. the receiver OF Richard Norh-
Egton. for the benefit OF persons with prior claims
TO those OF the creditors OF the Worthhgton COM
pany Mr.. Titles chief point is that the Appellate
Division ignored material facts In its DECISION
among them that Mr. Little was not aware OF the
claim OF Mr.. Reynolds when he entered into that
compromise to obtain the policies which Justice
Hatch 80 harshly characterized. In the brief -"
says:
When Receiver Ilttles claim was made. when the
Worthlngtons and when the policies were obtained
on his claim from Margaret Worihingten ne ma
other claim to the policies or proceeds thereof
The principal creditor under the Reynolds claim
as well as the Worhngton Company was MT
Garabrant and Justice Hatch had declared that
he had been deceived into giving his consent To
the compromise. Mr.. Little answers as follows
Now the attention Of the Court Is called 10 the
fact that the whole circumstances connected with
the calling In of Mr.. Garabrant was not IN any way
TO deceive him. The purpose Of consulting WIN
him was in regard to the propriety Of making me
settlement; that was the object OF the lnteINiiemi
Mr.. Garabrant in obtaining his approval because
we did not tell him that his receiver cla n ~
own these policies advised him that his receiver
had right 10 tho proceeds thereof. At this time
the findings and the facts show, we han no no
tice Of any claim made by the plaintiff NO claiIn
had been made by the plaintiff. We had no noll'e
that time that any receivership was IN eNislenV
The first knowledge that point was optalhe'
some time in March. 1898. -, D., 80,
There could be no conceament or the lact WI.
known TO us Or the other hand. II there Were any
concea,ment deception (Which IL not rnar S'u!!
II was on the part OF Mr. Garabrant he kne" lhass
waving valid claims against me esInu. 81
Richard Worthingtcn. against Margaret Not.H.s,
ton personally who owned some property az -"
Clin Long Island. and against EliZaDeth Sp.ou,',
and vet he never informed us that AZ the instance
Of his firm a receiver In supplementary proceedlhss
had been appointed OF Richard Worthington, he
never Informed us II he knew THAI that receiver
rlehts and moneys: he told us II he knew
that his receiver claimed all the money arising
therefrom and allowed TO go on and make the
agreement with Margaret Worthngton IN ignorahTss
of all these things. If he didn't know. now couIi
we be expected 10 know? II we were not lntorme1
OF these facts how could II be claimed we neceiVth
a party who should have known II such claim eN-
listed? 49,, -, .....,.
The object Of the interview with Mr.. Garaorantt
was to ascertain IL he approved OF giving UP ano
rpIpa sing the various claims held by Mr.. Little
against these parties. No other thought IMAM tnIs
entered into the arrangement We could nav.
carried that compromise agreement Wltnout
calling upon Mr. Garabrant at all HIS presence
or consent not necessary. ana, ms oslns 80
II would be ve-y strange indeed, TO call IN an I'M
necessary party and then make the misrepresenIa.
tions 10 him In order to obtain A consent nov
necessa>y or requisite He was called In ana con-
suited as an act OF courtesy.