The Washington times., 1901-09-09
LICENSE DISPUTE In COURT
Much Involved Legal Proceedings
Regarding a Saloon Sale.
Hearing to BE Held Wednesday to
Determine Complicated Points of
Ownership, md Alleged Disregard
of Previous judicial Orders.


| Much litigation has arisen in the local
| courts through the sale of the saloon
/ business until very recently conducted
by Paul F. Cain at S07 North Capitol
! Street The matter was made a subject
j for the consideration of the court some
time ago when Thomas F. McNulty. N
| NJ Matthews & Co. of Baltimore; John
| T. Crowley, and Michael ]. Keane. of this
| city, flied suit against Cain and others
asking for the appointment of a receiver
! to take charge of his saloon business and
/ to make a distribution of the assets under
| the order OF the court. Those named as
| defendants besides Cain are Patrick j.
! Ryan, Edward J.. Jordan. Abraham King
| Lorenzo 4. Bailey, and Asher II. Nof-
| singer.
When the matter came up, the court,
| after hearing the complaint answer and
! argument, refused to appoint receiver
/ and dismissed the application for re-
/ strainins order. The court, however,
| granted the complainants permission 10
! amend their pleadings, which was done
( on Saturday, when supplemental bill
! was filed in which the Consumers Brew
| ing Company and its President, James
| Richardson, We're also named defend
| belief that the Consumers Brewing Com
| pany is insolvent, and that many suits,
brought by its creditors and stockholders.
/ are pending against it, asking for the ap-
pointment of receivers and other pur-
poses. 1t is also stated that the plant of
the Consumers Brewing Company. which
is located at Rosslyn, Va, is encumbered
for at least $4,000 which sum the COM
plainants declare upon information and
belief is more than it's real value. Nc
Nuity &c Co. sue as judgment creditors of
Cain. Mathews & Co, also as creditors,
and Keane as creditor on his own be-
half and also on the behalf of others who
may intervene. The aggregate claimed
by these complainants is S3S2. 40. 1t is,
however, stated that the defendant Cain
owes other debts amounting to nearly
s2.eOO.
The defendants Ryan and Jordan are
sued as trustees under two chattel deeds
of trust, the defendant King the
ostensible beneficiary under the deeds of
trust referred to and as the 'ostensible
payee'' in note secured by the deeds of
trust and also as the beneficiary under
deed of trust said to have been executed
by the defendant Nofsingor, and note
made by him, and also as secretary
treasurer of the Consumers Brewing
Company; the defendant Nofsinger is
sued in his own right as the vendee of
Cain, and also as the alleged vendee''
from the Consumers Brewing Company
under an alleged contract of sale of GER
tain goods and chattels and rights and
privileges heretofore the property of the
defendant Cain: the Consumers Brew
ing Company is sued as the real bene-
f,f.
of trust. and as the real holder of the
notes secured by the same and also as the
depository of the purchase money arising
from the sale of chattels, goods and privi-
leges of Cain" The defendants Rich
ardson and Bailey are sued as trustees.
The circumstances surrounding the
transaction as set forth in the bill of the
complainaEts are very complicated. 1t is
explained that on August II the complain
ants filed suit against the defendants
Cain, Ryan, Jordan, King, Nofsinger,
and Bailey, asking for the appointment
of receiver for the saloon business con-
dueted by Cain and to restrain the latter
from disposing of his assets 1t is stated
that the restraining order issued by the
court was duly served upon the defend
ant Nofsinger, and also on Bailey. who
is the attorney for the Consumers Brew
ing Company, and the other defendants.
This notice, it is said, was served before
Cain transferred his liquor license to
NofsinGer and before any of the money
which had passed in the transaction had
actually been paid to the last named de
fendant Hearing upon the application
for the appointment of a receiver, how
ever, was not had until August -, when
it was refused blythe court II is stated,
lNfx hot ~ rod laa~ h.. s,f
fidavit of James Richardson, President of
the Consumers Brewing Company, that
the latter had possession Of the purchase
money arising from the contract of the
it. is claimed that the defendants Bailey
and King, the secretary-treasurer Of the
brewing company, were notified and
warned against paying out any Of the
funds arising from the sale Of Gains
saloon business.
1t is further alleged by the complain
ants. on information and belief, that
some time prior to August II last Cain
entered into a contract with Nofsinger
to sell and transfer to the latter his sa-
loon fixtures and license and the lease of
the premises for the sum of $3.50. This,
II Is said. was consummated by Cain en-
dorsing his name upon the back of his
license to sell liquor. After this the
license was transferred to NOfsinger uDou
the records of the Excise Board Not
withstanding his direct transfer of the
saloon business of Cain to NofsingeT. 1t
Is alleged that the business is now
claimed by the Consumers Brewing Com
pany on the ground that Cain turned ii
over to the corporation. The complain
ants question the legal right of the brew
ing company to hold a retail liquor Ii
cense, and say that the license held by
Cain was not transferred to ii by the
Excise Board. II is further stated that
after Cain transferred the business to
NofSinger the latter executed his prom
issory note to King. the secretary-treas-
urer of the Consumers Brewing Com
pany, secured by chattel deed of trust.
for the sum of s. 200 for the benefit of
the brewing company. The complainants
declare this transaction to be a sham
and fraud, on the ground that it is not
OF legal character and was not founded
upon any valuable consideration.
The complainants further allege that
the most valuable part of Gains saloon
business was his liquor license. and claim
that that should be considered as part of
his assets and administered for the bene-
fit of all his creditors. 1t is also stated
that Nofsinger paid Cain 81. $50 and that
sum, or some security for it, came into
the possession of the Consumers Brew
ing Company, or its officers or agents or
Is held in escrow for ii or for the de-
fendant Cain or Norfsinger, if some con-
dition or other is not complied with. For
this reason the court is asked to compel
the officers of the Consumers Brewing
Company and the other defendants to
disclose in their answers the details and
particulars of the transaction under CON
sideratiOn.
1t is also alleged by the complainants
that Notwithstanding the notice given the
defendants, the latter have paid out to
creditors. other than the complainants
all the proceeds of the sale of Gains bust
ness except the sum of $400. which, il is
said, Will be paid pro rata to the com
plainants.
The matter will come up for adiudica-
tion before Justice Anderson on Wedncs-
day next. The complainants are repre-
sented by Charles Il. Darr and Downing
& kCauc counsel.