The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1900-04-13
Regarding Woodbury.
& Moulton Matter.
Referee Reserved His Decision
Until Briefs Are Submitted.


ruptoy law, section 60, which Is in sub
stance that person shall he deemed to
be giving o preference IL being insolvent
he shall have made transfer OF any
property. whether the person receiving
the property Is Innocent of the insol-
vency OF tbs person making the tran sfer
or not.
Mr.. Freeman went ON to say that he
claimed the firm Of Woodbury. s. Mouiton
was insolvent before November first. as
MIR. York's testimony showed that be-
tween two and three O'Clock on Oct b1st
he had received a lettsr from New York
Informing him of the protesting of a note
10 New York and he then knew that
he was iEsolvent. This payment Of $50
was made on November LIST. sit lie not
nsosssary to argue" said Mr.. freeman,
';that 10 this case the Municipal Security
Company was given preference because
1t eEa5led this creditor to obtain
greater percentage"
TIE tecond article was then taken up
By Mr. freeman which was to the effect
that this sum of $50 was accepted by
Edward II. York, the agent OF the
Municipal Security Company, one of tie
tenkrupts with knowledge that the firm
of Woodbury. g. Moulton was at that time
insolTent.
MIR. freeman here called the attention
of the reference to tbs n rat section, first
chapter Of the bankruptcy act, CLAUSE
fifteen, whlrh provides that firm shall
be deemed insolven: when it's assets at
q fair valuation are not sufficient to meet
the liabilities, aside from any property
which may have bsen removed and
secretsd. 1--WE claim" said Mr.. Rreeman
"that when this payment OF $50 was
made on November first, the firm was
: insoIvsns AMI we claim that for this
reason the claim of the Munie ipAl Seeuri-
~ Company should be ex aminsd and ex-
p. nged.
MIR. Freeman then took up another ar
ticle Of the petition which allegss that on
October 81, tie Municipal Security Com
pany was given a preference over the
other creditors OF the same class when
$3.50 wers raid to that company. This
sum of $3.50 oon:i,tea Of $3.50 paid to JIG.
II. York as salary Of the Municipal
Security Company and $40 paid to each
Ut the directors of the company. MIR.
York knew that the firm of woodbury. s.
Moulton was insolvent ct three O'Clock,
October 3lst, and the meeting Of the
directors OF the Municipal Security Com
pany was held at thres o'olook Cd that
day.
MIR. Freeman said that he did not &C.
knowledge that the firm did not know Of
Its insolvency earlier than October 3lst.
but MIR. York's admissions are sufficient
to cover the ground in this particular
casa. snow we understand that the
emily grounds the Municipal Security
Company has for defense is that all Of
these checks which were signed BY Mr..
York and paid out Of the assets OF the
firm of Woodbury. g. Moulton TO this
colupany we're signed by Mr.. York in sd-
values and that therefore he knew moth
ing about the transfer of the money on
this day. We claim that Mir. York cannot
shift she responsibility Of this transfer
to any clerk because In signing these
checks in advance he put himself in .
position Of continually Offering to sign
shecks and was doubly responsible for
The way In which the money was expend-
ID. 1t was not beyond his reach, as
treasurer of the Municipal Security Com
nany and q mem Der of the firm OF Wood
bury & Mcuiton to destroy these checks
which he bad signed in advance as soon
~ ne knew he was insolvent aud by not
doing SD he must bear the responsibility
Of the transfers made"
Mr.. Pierce, the referee, said that this WAS
perfectly apparent and that MIR. freeman
need not argue along that line any fur
iher. Mr.. Freeman then took up the
fourth article which alleges that the re-
oeiver of this sum of $3.50 was aware that
The firm from which 1t was received was
lnsolvsnt when the transfer was made,
inssmuoh az Mr.. York. the treasurer of
she company was also . member OF the
bankrupt firm.
This fifth article of the petition alleges
that On October 2sth, tine sum Of SS4i76
was paid to the Municipal Security Com
pany by MIR. York from the assets of
the firm which was then insolvent. or
this sum $64 was for coupons, and $40 20
was for stamps, kilograms and advertis-
ing. The evidence shows, 10 Mr.. Free
man argued, that the firm Of Woodbury. &
Meulton was insolvsns by October 2Sth,
and that these payments being made to
this orsditsr gave them preference over
other editors Of the same class.
Mr.. Pierce, the referee, then asked Mr..
Freeman. II he had considered how this
line of argument would affect the other
dspositors of this firm who hsd within
four months or prior to the adjudication
OF bankruptcy Withdrawn any sums
from tbs arm Of Woodbury. g. Aoulton