Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-03-08
FRANTZ VS.. GlRARD TRUST co.
Shit in Superior Court on an Action In
Deceit for 1928.

Snlt IN Superior Court on an Action IN
Deceit for s2,32S.
The case of DIR. Abram E. Frantz vs..
the Girard Life Insurance, Annuity and
Trust Co. of Philadelphia was put on
trial in the Superior Court Tuesday
afternoon. IIe sues to recover 81, 32S.
He claims that he loaned the Girard
trust company sc, 100 on the assurance
that it would BIO first claim and would
be paid out of the assets OF the Will
mington Dental Manufacturing Co.
The money was to assist the trust COM
pany, as receiver for the dental COM
pany towards taking up an indebted
mess OF $40, 900 held by III. NJ. b. Barry
of Chicago. Instead of Or. Frantz
becoming preferred creditor, he had
to take his position with other creditors
and as one of them has participated in
the two dividends paid by the receiver
on the indebtedness of the dental com
pany. The amount he sues for is
what remains after his receipt of the
dividends. He claims that fraudulent
representations were made on the SUBJ
ject.
William S. Hilles represents DIR.
Frantz, and George Tucker Bispham
and Robert d. Maxwell of Philadelphia,
represent the trust company. The
appearance of Mr.. Bispham was Of
much interest 10 local attorneys, for he
| is the author of a work on equity and
has large reputation for legal ability.
James II. Hoffecker, Jr., who has
been associated in behalf of the trust
company in the dental case matters, is
not acting in the present case as he is
to be called as witness.
DIR. j. f. Frantz was the only wit
ness called Tuesday. He testified that
he was president of the dental company
from the time of its organization until
receivers were appointed, and after
that he was general supervisor of its
affairs under specific direction from the
receivers. He raised $4,000 to cake
up the Barry debt upon the assurance
of Henry L. Tatnall, vice-president of
the Girard Insurance Co., that it was
to be q first claim. His brother, A. Il.
Frantz, contributed ST. 100 of the money.
Much of yesterdays session was
spent in cross examination by Mr..
Bispham of DIR. j. f. Frnntz. Numer.
Gus members of the local bar were
present as listeners A very shrewd
piece of work was done by the Phila-
delphia attorney. He was asking as to
the note received by DR.. A. L. Frantz
in return for the money he had placed
with the trust company, and Mr.. Hilles
objected to having the witness testify
as to the maker of the note, holding
that the note itself was the best evil
dence.
Mr.. Bispham had the witness say
that he had seen the note and asked
"How did you come to see the noteH"
81 signed it," replied DR.. Frantz.
As the doctor was president of the
Wilmington Dental Manufacturing Co.
this answer amounted to telling the
maker of the note, and a laugh rippled
among the attorneys at Mr.. Bispham's
getting it in.
Mr.. Hilles objected to further ques
tions on that line and Mr.. Bispham re-
marked that he had gone as far as the
law allows.
81 beg pardon,'' he added, thinking
of the laugh, 81 didn't mean to make
any joke ABOUT this
DIR. Abram E. Frantz, the plaintiff
followed his brother on the stand. H,
testified that Henry Tatnall, vice. presi
dent of the trust company, told hin
that the money loaned would be repaid
out Of the first funds coming into hi
bands as receiver.