davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

Francisco, State of California, under the
firm name and style Of LIE Roy g: Harvey
& Co., and that on the said 14th day OF
December, 1895, the said partners, by
mutual consent, dissolved their said CO.
partnership.
80. That at the time of the dissolution
OF said copartnership, as aforesaid, on
the said l4th day OF December, 1895, 1t was
ascertained and determined that the LA
bilitieS of the said firm of LIE Roy u.
Harvey & Co. exceeded the value Of all
its assets by the sum of eighteen thou
sand five hundred and one dollars and
sixty-eight cents (S18,50 6S); that it was,
at the time of said dissolution, mutually
agreed and understood that the said de-
tire from said firm and should assign and
relinqush to the said LIE Roy G. Harvey
his share of the assets thereof, and should
make and deliver to the. said Harvey his
promissory note for one-half Of the afore-
said excess of the liabilities of the said
firm over the value of its as
sets, and that in consideration thereof
assume and pay all the liabilities
of said firm and should retain
all the assets thereof: that in pursuance
said defendant, Howard f. Wright, did
on the said 14th day of December, 1895.
at the city and county of San Francisco,
State of California, retire from said firm
and assign and transfer by written as
signment in due form his share of the as
sets thereof to the said LIE Roy G.. Harvey
ana make ana uellNer 10 the Sdlu harvey
his promissory note in writing for one
half OF the excess of the liabilities of said
firm over the value of it's assets, to wit,
for the sum of nine thousand two hun
bred and fly dollars and eighty-four
cents ($9250 S4), and that in further pur-
suance of the agreemeNt and understand
ing aforesaid the said LIE Roy G. Harvey
did on the said 18th day of December,
1895, at the city, county and State afore-
said in consideration of said assignment
to him of said defendants share of the
assets of said firm, and in further con-
sideration of the making and delivery to
mentioned assume and agree and promise
to pay all the liabilities of said firm. and
did then and there assume and take unto
himself all the assets of said firm.
80 That the said promissory note for
nine thousand two hundred and fifty dol
lars and eighty-four cents lS9250 8D was
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

and is the identical promissory note de-
scribed and set out in said alleged third
cause of action in said complaint. and
that the sole consideration thereof was
and is the aforesaid assumption thereof,
and agreement and promise to pay, all
the liabilities, of the said firm of LIE Roy
G. Harvey.
~. That at the time of the execution
and delivery to the said LIE Roy g. Har-
yey OF the said promissory note last above
mentioned, to wit, on the said 14th day OF
December, 1885, the said LIE Roy G. Har
vey was unknown to this defendant, but
as he. the said Harvey, then and there
wei Wen knew, and ever since has been, and
still is, wholly and hopelessly insolvent
ana unable TO pay his debts on any OF
the said Liabilities of the said firm of LIE
Roy q. Harvey & Co. which he, the said
lsed TO pay, as aforesaid, and that, al
though liabilities of the said firm. which
the SAID Harvey so assumed, and agreed
ana promised to pay, to an amount ex-
toned promissory note, matured and be-
came due and payable long before the
commencement of this action, the said LIE
hoy u. Harvey did not pay, and has
never paid any part of said liabilities and,
by reason of his aforesaid insolvency, is
now, and will ever be, as this defendant
is informed and verify believes, and upon
his information and belief AYERS, wholly
unabie to pay any part of said, or any,
liabilities of the said firm, and that in
consequence thereof the consideration for
the said promtSSory note for nine thousand
TWO hundred and fifty dollars and eighty
four cents (S9250 S4) last above mentioned.
mas, and had, long before the commence
ment of this action, wholly failed and
come to naught, and the said promissory
note is without consideration and void.
o. That at the maturity of said last
mentioned promissory note for said sum
OF nine thousand two hundred and fifty
dollars and eighty-four cents ($9250 8D ,
and after the failure of the consideration
thereof by reason of said LIE Roy G. Har-
Veys failure to- pay matured liabilities of
said firm of LIE Roy G. Harvey & Co., ex-
ceeding the face value of said note, and
also by reason of the said Harvey's utter
and hopeless insolvency and inability to
pay. any part of said or any liabilities of
said LIE Roy G. Harvey, as this defendant
is informed and verify believes and upon
his information and belief AYERS, made a
pretended assignment of said last men
toned promissory note without any val
liable consideration or other conSidera-
ton whatever to John Blair the plaintiff
herein, he, the said Blair, then and there
having full knowledge of the true and
only consideration for said note, of the
aforesaid total failure of the said conSid-
Grafton, and of the consequent invalidity
of said note, as well as of the said Har-
Veys insolvency and other facts causing
said failure of consideration as aforesaid,
and of all the other facts alleged in this
further and separate answer and defense
to the said alleged third cause of action
in said complaint, which pretended as
signment was and is one of the alleged
alleged third cause of action, and that
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
A GRANT-BULLA
CONFERENCE WANTED

CALL HEADQUARTERS SACRA-
MENTO, Jan 16-Assemblyman Belshaw
of Contra Costa is a stalwart supporter
of Senator Bulla. He is also a man of in
dependent thought and action and he gen
orally speaks in language not to be mis-
taken
This evening in the Golden Eagle corri-
dor Mr.. Belshaw stated publicly that it
was his opinion that it would be an excel
lent idea for the supporters of the Sena-
torlal candidacy of Mr.. Grant and the
Assemblymen and Senators. from Los An
geIes county to have friendly meetlns
Ior the purpose of consultation.
MT Belshaw said he thought that IL the
GRANT managers could show TO the Los
angeles County legislators that with their
eight votes Grant could be elected Sena-
Tor, then the eight votes of Los Angeles
County would go to Grant.
The Assemblyman from Contra Costa
was very emphatic in his statement ana
ne said that he saw no reason why such
a conference as he had outlined could not
be held in spirit of amity and friend
ship.
Later Milton ]. Green, Grants mana
ger, WIS seen and asked whether or not
Mr.. Grants supporters would be willing
to meet the Bulla contingent from Los
Angeles County and discuss the prospects
of Grants election and how they would
be affected by receiving the eight solid
Republican votes of Los Angeles County.
Mr.. Green was very much pleased with
the idea and stated that he would be VIII
lHBt SpSdhlIlS IOl the III ant ptOplC' ~
hold such a conference as had been sug-
gested at as early a date as possible. Mr..
Green at once set out to bring 1t about.
But he has a hard task in front of him.
There are a number of people here osten-
sbly supporting Bulla, but they are really
in the fight for Burns. Any proposition
looking to the Los Angeles County dele
cation leaving Bulla and going to Grant
they will oppose with all the ardor they
possess.
But the man who suggested this meet
ing, Assemblyman Belshaw, every one
admits is an honest and conscientious
supporter of Senator Bulla. This fact
gives the proposition some weight despite
the opposition it will meet with from the
Burns men who are in the Bulla camp
under a cloak
Senator Bulla's nine supporters eau
cused tonight and agreed to stand with
him on ballot tomorrow. There seems
to be no disagreement and there was no
talk of going to any other candidate
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
GROVE JOHNSON DENONC THE PRESS ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLE

day OF December 1896.
sisnsd LIE BOZ IN 6 = H MRIGH {ssa
That the face value of said accounts of
Allen g. Wright and ]. v. Lawrence was
the sum of seven thousand three hundred
and thirty-six and $500 dollars.
That the said accounts were of no value
and proved to be of no value and the said
Allen & Wright and j. Y. Lawrence to
be wholly insolvent, and the said accounts
to be loss, and that one-haf of said
loss, amounting to the sum of three thou
sand six hundred and sixty-eight and
43-100 dollars, became and was due and
payable from the defendant to the said
lie Roy G.. Harvey.
That before the commencement of this
action the said LIE Roy G. Harvey, by
an instrument in writing duly assigned and
transferred the said claim and demand
to the plaintiff. who is now the lawful
owner and holder thereof.
VI.
That the defendant has not paid the
same nor any part thereof, but that the
said sum of three thousand six hundred
and sixty-eight and 43-100 dollars, together
with the interest thereon at the rate of
seven % per cent per annum from Deem
Der the 14th, 1895, is now wholly due,
owing, payable and unpaid from the de-
PENDANT TO the pldlHllu.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands Judgment
against defendant for the sum of twenty
thousand seven hundred and ninety-one
and 3O-100 dollars, together with the inter-
est thereon as aforesaid and for costs OF
suit and for general relief
Dated San Francisco. December 8, 1886.
CARSON & SAVAGE,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
State of California, City and County of
San Francisco-ss.
Theodore Savage, being duly sworn, de-
poses and says:
That he has read the foregoing COM
plant and knows the contents thereof,
and the same is true to his own knowl-
edge excepting as to such matters as are
therein stated upon information and be-
lief and as TO those matters that he be-
lieves 1t to be true. Affiant further de-
poses that he is one of the attorneys for
the plaintiff in the above entitled action
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
a CAUSTlC COMMENT
ON WRIGHT'S ACTION

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16-Dispatches
from Sacramento telling of corruption in
the Senatorial fight were read with
amazement here and elsewhere in the
East
The Washington Times makes this caus-
tic editorial comment: Reports from
California and Montana about the corrupt
use of money in Senatorial fights in those
States are almost incredible Those who
read the statement of the Speaker of the
California Assembly will want a doctor
to examine their minds for evidence of in
sanity. 1t does not seem possible that 1t
can read as it does. He frankly admits
that he sold his vote for Grant for Sen
ator, but finding that he cannot vote for
him, probably because he has been Of
fered more by another candidate he
promises to return the money in a few
days, presumably when the other fellow
WhackS up.
1T is not a new thing to have it
charged that money was being used to
buy Senatorship, but accusations in the
past have rarely been specific; they have
always been very general In their char
acter, making 1t impossible for the law
to get hold Of the guilty parties. Facts
and figures are given, however, of very
convincing nature, and if Speaker How
ard E. Wright of the California Legis-
lature has not been misquoted there is
Jury at Sacramento. Mr.. Wright ad-
mits having been paid the sum of $3.50
by an agent of U. s. Grant Jr. to vote
for him. He says frankly that there
were circumstances which prevented his
carrying out his contract. Ever since
the first ballot he has voted for Burns,
candidate of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road. The circumstances are not men
toned by Speaker Wright, but it is not
difficult to guess that they consist of q
large retainer to vote for the railroad
candidate. No more brazen confession
probably ever was made. The amazing
part of the whole thing is that. Wright
appears to treat the matter lightly. He
expects to return Grant his money he
says. in few days and then matters
will be all right. He evidently expects
to continue as Speaker of the California
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

close contact with him is liable to con-
.taminate"
Mr.. Blair exhibited one of Wrights
notes in the sum of $4Sl2 GO of date
May u. 1895. The other notes are in
the possession of Mr.. Harvey. That,
he said. was the only one he retained.
In November Of 1895 Wright was
elected a member of the Legislature,
and as long as he was a member of
that body he could not be served with
any papers in the suit that was filed
against hin But after the Legislature
adjourned in 1897 summons was served
upon him in the suit and then it was
that he filed his petition in insolvency,
thereby avoiding the issue involved in
Blair's suit.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
GROVE JOHNSON WILL
FIGHT THE CHARTER

CALL HEADQUARTERS SACRA-
MENTO, Jan. 1.-THE defenders and
friends of San Francisco's charter were
warned to-day that Grove L. Johnson,
some time Congressman, now a member
of the Assembly, will come out to-mor-
row morning in active opposition to the
new plan of government. For weeks
past he has been gathering together
every point of law that has any bearing
on the weak points in the charter and
has thoroughly acquainted himself with
its every phase, at whose instigation il
has not transpired.
johnson will not rely upon any strength
or following he has in the Assembly. for
he has none, but will have his fight upon
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

no other assignment of said last men,
toned note than the said pretended as
to the said plaintiff as this defendant ifi is
informed and verify believes and upon his
information and belief AYERS"
For answer to the alleged fourth cause
of action Wright 'avers that he has no
ficient to enable him to answer the allie
cation of said fourth cause of action that
the account, claim and demand therein
signed to plaintiff before the confluence
ment of this action, and placing his de-
NAL on that ground, the defendant does
or that the plaintiff is the lawful owner
and holder thereof. And defendant fur
Their denies that the sum of 1853 43, or any
the plaintiff
For answer to the alleged fifth cause
of action, Wright denies upon and ac-
oording to his information and belief, that
the accounts of Allen & Wright and of
j. v. Lawrence" ever We're or proved to
be of no value, cor that the said Allen
& Wright or j. v. Lawrence ever proved
to be wholly insolvent, or insolvent at
ALL" or that the accounts ever proved to to
be a loss amounting to $366S 43, or any part
Of that sum- Further, that he has no in
vey eyer assigned that claim to plaintiff,
and he makes denial that such claim
was so. assigned, or. that the sum OF
S366S 43 Is owing whollyeor in part to the
cause for action Wright sets forth the
dissolution of co-partnership between
himself and Harvey, and that among the
assets Of the firm were certain accounts
of Allen g. Wright and ]. V. Lawrence,
having a face value of 1886 So; that upon
the dissolution Wright and Harvey exc
cuted in duplicate that agreement relat-
ing to these accounts which is described in
the fifth cause of action in the complaint;
that the sole consideration for the execl-
ton and delivery of the instrument by the
defendant was the assumption of the la
bilties of the firm.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

executed and delivered each to the other
in duplicate, a certain written instrumel.-
in the words following, to wit:
1t is hereby mutually agreed and understood
that the accounts of Allen s. Wright and J.
V. Lawrence, which show in the memorandum
of this date. being listed therein at their face
value under bills receivable considered of
doubtful value, and as their actual
value shall be ascertained it shall be incum-
bent upon the undersigned to apportion TO
themselves. Individually such. profits or such
loss as may result from the settlement.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto set
our hands and seals at the city and county OF
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

there existed and for long time prior
thereto there had existed copartnership
between the defendant and one LIE Roy G,
Harvey, under the firm name OF lie Roy
G. Harvey & Co., doing business at the
city and county of San Francisco, State
Of California. That on said day the said
copartnership was dissolved and said
Howard z. Wright retiring and the said
LIE Roy G.. Harvey assuming all the In
debtedness and taking all the assets of
said firm.
II.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
RIGHTS RECORD IN PAST FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

the constitutionality of several of the sec
lions that have been already brought into
question.
Judge Henry N. Clement hurried to this
city as soon as he received word of john
sons intentions, and tonight is locked up
at the Golden Eagle Hotel He promises
to provide Johnson with all the law
points he may want when the matter OF
the charter comes up as the Speclal Or
of the journal
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

The annexed is a copy of the original
complaint in the suit of John Blair VS..
Howard E. Wright to recover on the
notes of hand given by Wright which
in his answer he says he does not owe
and which in his petition in insolvency
he sWears he does owe:
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

and resides in the city and county of San
francisco, State of California, and that
the plaintiff is absent from the said city
ana county of San Francisco and afflant
therefore makes this verifcation.
q. Supscribed and sworn to before me TINS
9TH day of December 1896.
TIJEO0OPE SAVAGE.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

Mrs. E. L. Dickinson, Palo Alto, loan,
$4,000; w. E. Burbank, Los Angeles,
3 cents; Sarah A. Thornton, San
Francisco, loan, $428.
AS the people of California are
watching the career of this active po-
litical and business dodger, the ap-
pended list of the debts from which
Howard E. Wright was released on
December 90, 1897, will be perused with
unusual interest at this time:
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
MORE OF WRlGHJ'S
BUSINESS METHODS

LIE Roy G. Harvey, Wright's former
partner. when told of the charges made
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

Mr.. Wrights assets were, listed at
that time as follows: Homestead,
none; personal property none; per-
sonal property exempt from execution,
wearing apparel $500"
In this same petition, which is a fl
nancial wonder in its way, Wright ac-
knowledges debts which will lead the
public 10 believe that he found his
special dupes among women who were
so unfortunate as to possess money
they were using at the time it was
needed in the interest of Wright. The
inventory in the sworn list of creditors
presented by him contains the follow
ing items that call for no comment:
Arabella Pratt, Oakland, loan,
S271; Gertrude L. Smith, Oakland,
loan, Sill; Emily a. P. Smith, San
francisco, rents, $33e8; Mrs. r. H.
Winston, San Francisco, loan, $7925;
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17
COMPLAINT or BLAIR
AGAINST H, E WRIGHT

In the Superior Court of the City and
County of San Francisco, State of
California.-Jo Blair, plaintiff, VS..
Howard E. Wright, defendant.
Plaintiff claims of the defendant and for
cause of action alleges:
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

I suffered terribly
from roaring in my
head during an attack
of catarrh, and became
very deaf, used Ely's
Cream Balm and in
three weeks could hear
as we'll as ever.-A.
e. Newman, Grazing,
Mich.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

Cream Balm is placed into the nostrils spread
over the membrane and is absorbed. Relief is
immediate and a cure follows. It is not dry
ing-does not produce sneezing. Large. soc;
. ELY BROTHERS. Sc Warren ST. New York.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

San Francisco State of California, this 14th
day OF December 1896.
tSigned) LIE ROY C. HARVEY, (Seal.)
(Signed) HOWARD E. WRIGHT. (Seal.)
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

That the face value of said accounts of
Allen e. Wright and ]. V. Lawrence was
the sum of seven thousand three hundred
and thirty-six and $1,000 dollars.
The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-17

THEODORE SAVAGE.
The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1899-07-14
The Decline aud Fail "f Com Bread. g.
4, News and COuricr.)

Tho Richmond Dispatch votes Il
general tender Of congrutulution to
the Washington authorities on their
purpose to make "a grand exhibit of
American corn and "curn breads"
at the Paris Exposition, and adds:
"That's all right. 1t shows good
b ,sinrss sanse. Oar exports OF com
are steadily increasing, though the
The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1899-07-14

taxes great biS open hreplace ana
a Southern negress, (with rod ban
dana upon her head,) to make prime
corn bread. Nor VII; any meal but
water ground meal servo tho hest
purpose. Stcam. power mca. is tn
booed.
"Let the Washington ,nicinls SEQ
what can ho done to restore corn
| bread to tho tables Of tho American
people,"
1t is no wonder, Of course, that
corn broad docs not mako much
hea lwav in lands where it Is cooked
once u week to he eaten all tho week.
Corn bread is not good TO out when
it gets cold. 1t should ho eaten hot,
with butter, and bu,termilk, or given
to the poor. The Dispatch, is in or
ror, however, in charging tho present
uupopularity Of such bread to tho
cooking stove, aud steam power
ground meal 1t does not tako
water ground meal, and big open
fireplace, and Il Southern Mauma,
with bandnna ON her hcad, or any
Of them, "to max" primo corn broad.
All these may hc given, M.d thu brcnd
will still he mot tittcn" to cat-if
| 1 /, 40 III
be lacking. And that condition is
not, rs some would bAliove, that
the corn must be carried to mill at
least three miles distant, Oh II mule,
with little colorcd hoy or an old
colored "uncl"' on top OF the bag,
and the meal brought back in the
same way. And it does not matter
a little bit, in fact, whothrr the corn
Is ground at the full Of the moon OF
the "dark" of it. The essential re-
uuiremcnt is that tho bread shall be
made Of mcai that is ma L. Of South,
!: ern grown curn-lhr further Snutl
, il is grown the bcttcr-thut the mca
3 shall be freshly ground, that th'
!, dough shall be baked q"ick)y in ,
!, oven, or Oh hot hrildlc, or in re,
, ashes
= Good meal will be spoiled by bat
= handling, Of conrs", but tn" hes
: handling by the most experienced
. cook will never make "primn corn
= bread" Of meal made Of "Wrstcr
= corn Of commerce. The swect,.cs
9 and flavor Of Southern corn is not i
o. the Western grain, and can't ho 80
q q out Of it. If the Dispatch will con
= slider Il moment it will rcmcmnrr, w
n arc sure, that "primr corn bread
- was never scarce in the South hofOr
q the war, when thN South grew all ii
g own corn and mnde all its own cor
~ meal thcrcfrom; Whereas, such brea
. has practically Disappeared sitc" "
q began to grow cotton for fun ann
q buy all our meal and corn from tn
e other SECTIONS. That is the who
9 story. The Europeans knew nothin
q whatever of our anto bellnm corr
g bread, and have not taken kindly
9 tho post bollum variety. And v
q can't say that we blamo them. 1t
u tho poorest bread in the world.