The age-herald., 1901-05-05
VON |. THOMPSON
 EXPLAINS STATUS Suit Against Continental Secur- fly Redemption Company SUIT NOT YET ABANDONED Application fok Receiver Dismissed In Montgomery Because the Atlanta
 Attorney Was Not Present to
 Sign the Bond.
SUIT NOT YET ABANDONED

''The account in today's Age-Herald sent from Montgomery as to the hearing before Judge Bruce of the petition for a new receiver in the Continental Security Debenture Company was not exactly cor rect" said Won L. Thompson of the law firm of Thompson and Thompson to an Age-Herald reporter yesterday.
 The petition that was filed asking for receiver to take charge of the assets of the Continental Security Redemption Company was dismissed for the following reasons: The petition in involuntary bankruptcy and the petition for the ap- pointment of a receiver was for and in behalf of Atlanta creditors, who are rep resented bN Messrs. Harris and Sims of that place. MT. Stephen c. Harris of that firm was to have been in Montgomery on yesterday, but in some way missed his train and failed to get to Montgomery The firm of Thompson and Thompson and the firm of Mertins and Mangum were on hand and expected MT. Harris to be there, and when a telegram was received that he had missed his train there was nothing to do but for the petition to be dismissed.
 ''The petition was filed in behalf of At lanta creditors, and under the law bond was necessary, to be made in whatever amount the judge should name, and TO attorneys except Messrs. Harris and Sims had the authority to sign the pe- titioners' names to any bond as principal Therefore 1t was impossible for us to pro- ceed and the petition applying for a re- ceiver was dismissed. No evidence was introduced, no argument made. Opposing counsel objected to the petition being continued, and we therefore dismissed It.
 No Evidence Introduced.
 "The Montgomery account in the Age Herald would lead the public to believe that Judge Bruce actually passed upon the petition, and intimates very strongly that the attorneys employed In the invol- unary petition in bankruptcy either neg lected their business or in some manner were induced to withhold any further ac- tive or aggressive fight in the case, when the truth Is that Judge Bruce did not pass upon the receivership nor was the bill filed to remove MT Cobbs as receiv- CT, nor did Judge Bruce promptly dis miss the petition for a receiver, nor was the case ordered to Montgomery by Judge Bruce.
 All there Is to 1t Is that the application for receiver was dismissed for the req sons above stated. We notice that MT. Cobbs said that he has 'disproven each of them,' speaking of the charges brought against the officers of the company. We hardly think that MT. Cobbs expects to create such an impression on the public, as they offered no testimony in this case. The truth is, there was no testimony of- nor his attorney said a word except to object to continuance of the petition.
 No Montgomery Creditor.
 "Now, as to the complaint of some bondholder in Montgomery, we wish to state that the firm of Thompson & Thompson filed this petition in involun- tary bankruptcy in behalf of the Atlanta creditors whose names appear in the in voluntary petition and this was done at the instance of Messrs. Harris & Sims, attorneys of Atlanta, who were here in person, and not a single Montgomery creditor was known to our firm when this petition was filed, and not single Mont gomery creditor was named in the invol- untary petition in bankruptcy. nor have we been aided financially or otherwise in the involuntary petition in bankruptcy by any bondholder in Montgomery Therefore the bondholders assertion, if he referred to our firm, that the first at- torneys employed in the original petition had "laid down" on the bondholders, is simply erroneous. He certainly made no effort to assist us while in Montgomery, not even letting himself be known.
 Case Is Not Dead.
 "We wish to state again that the invol- untary petition in bankrutcy is still pend- ing and it will be fought to the bitter end. The mere fact of the petition for re- ceiver having been dismissed cuts no f1g- ure whatever. We saw that 1t was use- less to insist upon a continuance of our application for receiver for the reason that 1t is only a week off before the time will arise for the adjudication of this company in bankruptcy, after which time no bond Is required of petItioning cred itors for the appointment of a receiver, as receiver will be appointed as a mat ter of course"