Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1901-04-24
X. /. BARTON,
MARSHALL MCCORM
From the Post, April 10th.

Editor Post Will you kindly allow me
space in your paper to state my connec-
ton and the connection of Mr. r. T.
Barton with a suit now pending in the
Prince William County Circuit Court.
between the creditors and stockholders
of the Berryville Land and Improvement
Company.
In your issue of April -, under the
headlines of Charges of Conspiracy"
you state that Hon r. T. Barton and
Marshall Mccormick are charged with
conspiracy, by which certain stockhold-
ers in a corporation were released TO the
"detriment" of others. In your issue of
the 18th, you have a card signed bv II. 7.
Barton and Marshall Mccormick. in re-
ply 10 the communication of April 10
This communication signed by Mr. Bar
ton and myself is so obscure and ambig-
uous that | have determined 10 write this
communication. From that article il is
difficult TO determine who represented
the stockholders and who the receiver
Mr.. Barton or |. the facts are these:
l. alone have represented Thomas d.
Gold, the receiver of the Berryville Land
and improvement Company, from the
fall of 1899. Prior TO that time the re-
ceiver was represented by the late John
j. Williams and myself
,. Mr.. r. T. Barton has never repre.
sented the receiver, nor has he ever been
asked by the receiver or his counsel TO
represent him in airy litigation either
now pending or heretofore pending. His
name, ii is true, was signed bv me in No
vember, 1900, TO brief which prepared
as counsel for the receiver in a case
pending in the Court of Appeals of Vir.
ginia, wherein T. j. Shickel, a stoca
holder, was the appellant, and Thomas
d. Gold, receiver, was the appellee. This
rs the only appearance ever made by Mr.
Barton as counsel for the receiver, and
bis name was attached to the brief by me
without consultation with him, because
he represented a creditor whose interes,
was identical with that of my client.
3. Mr.. Barton represented certain
stockholders who were sued in Frede-
rick county, Va, because of their failure
to pay up subscriptions alleged to have
been made by them to the capital stock
of the company.
4. At the March term of 1900 of the
Circuit Court of Frederick county. the
suits against the stockholders were dis
missed by the Circuit Court of Frederick
county on the pleas presented by the de-
PENDANTS. They were not dismissed by
any agreement-between Mr.. Barton and
myself, or the receiver, or anybody else
They were dismissed, as appears by the
record, upon an order of the court.
D. The receiver, acting under an order
of the Circuit Court of Prince William
county, or the honorable Judge who pre-
sides over that court, instituted a suit on
the law side of the Circuit Court of
Clarke county against Reed & McCor-
mick TO recover parts of two assessments
made upon stock subscribed for by them
Al oo To ~ ch - III
in default. A special term of the Circuit
Court of Clarke county was called TO
convene March 81 for the purpose of try
ing this case. 1t was regarded as prac-
tcally test case, and for that reason
would determine the result of future lit
igatlon, looking to the collection of un-
paid subscriptions TO the stock of the
insolvent company.
6. A few days before the time fixed for
the holding of the special term an in
junction was granted by the Hon. VIM.
VI. Atkinson, judge of the Corporation
Court of the city of Winchester, to re-
strain Thomas ID. Gold, receiver, from
the prosecution of this suit at law until
the further order of the court. The al
legation of the bill upon which the in.
junction was awarded was that the suits
in Winchester had been dismissed by an
agreement entered into by Thomas ID.
Gold, receiver, through me as counsel.
and X. i. Barton, the counsel of the
stockholders in Frederick county, upon
the condition that Mr.. Barton should
thereafter appear as counsel for the re-
ceiver in pending litigation and such lit
igation as might thereafter arise. There
is no such word used in the bill as either
fraud" or conspiracy" and unless
fraud and conspiracy can be inferred
from the allegation that these suits were
dismissed as the result of an agreement.
then there is no such charge contained
in the bill. This denial was sworn to bv
the receiver and was supported by the
uncontradicted evidence of all of the
parties concerned.
z. Mr.. Barton has recently represented
Mr.. A. Moore. Jr., a large creditor of the
insolvent company, and as the interest