Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1904-02-26
.pAveNpoRr.cRowe CASE.
Mr.. Davenport States His Side OF u
in Reply to tho Other as Given IN
the Reformer--What He Claims ana
Wbx-Some OF the Evidence.

Editor OF the Reformer
Slr.--Newspape columns are hard-
ly the place to try lawsuits; but since
your report on the 18th of the Daven-
port- Crowell- Carpenter Co.'S case as
sumes to do this, and to decide n-e'
g, IN pretty full and complete refuta-
lion of Davenport's claims developer
etc, etc, and to substantially charge
me with wilful perjury, 1t may De
worth while to state what those
claims were and how "refuted.
They were Q) That Croweli shouia
account for a big loss sustained In n
note swapping operation because ne
and T.. p. Carpenter, then treasurer
and president did 1t on company notes
signed by both to raise money Tor
their individual uses. proved by
books of the company showing tha'
Mt the close Of the swapping win
IS. 7ss raised from 1t Crowelfs account
stood oyerdrawn $4,000.34 and Carpen-
ter's $5,4SS, with proceeds or four Oh
the eight notes tracing to Croweil ana
three to Carpenter, as we claim w
That the swapping was not only done
without my knowledge or consent pu'
in face of my refusal as director 10
allow swapping of notes proved by
Frank r. Pratt, book keeper at the
time.) (3) And also In face OF my re-
fusal. and that of the board OF directors
less than fortnight before the swap
ping began, to consent to even iegi'-
innate business connection with the
narties with whom II was done, rea-
sons and references being given Tor
regarding them as untrustwortny'
(Fact of refusal admitted; rest nor
remembered ca That Crowell hao
always concealed from me his part IN
the operation. laying the blame OH
Carpenter, whom he claimed to nave
deceived him into the belief that IL
was necessary for the business. Slha'
very claim OF necessity appears IN
his sworn answer in this trial. to)
That thus concealing, but because Oh
his admitted negligence in doing II IN
the face of such prohibitions, ne
agreed at the time to make the loss
good and put In the money to take
I'D all the notes-which he dio' anu
now claims the company to owe MN
this money and to be entitled 10 pre-
ferred stock for it. agreement proved
| nv Mrs. Mary r. auckland, nee Sui
l,iyan then assistant editor of the Re-
/ former. who testifies that 1t was mace
In her presence.) CD That TINS
agreement, though also covering othef
things between us, was afterward re-
duced to writing to the amount OF $o,-
375.49. (The existence of any writ
ten agreement was first denied under
oath, and after 1t was produced III
court, was claimed to refer TO othei
matters between us. which CroWeii
admitted to be still unsettled. ~
That the company claim or dep'
against me and lien on some OF my
stock because Of some notes given ~
or Is years ago, is bogus one, De-
cause these were by the written agree
ment specifically made Growers oo-
location and so treated by the COM
pany which never demanded payment
of me and ceased about that time to
even charge me interest on them as
| q had done before; and, further, tha'
the stock SO claimed has every snare
except four. been honored by the COM
nany as my property when placed as
collateral from time to time, ana IN
every case by Crowell's action az
president and director (All shown py
the books and records.) (S) Iha'
Crowell, without fulfilling either YER
bal or written agreement mas Ioi
eight years past, without my concur
renee, been taking notes from the
company for all amounts accru'ng &c
him. (Admitted.)
Therefore, that the Reorganization
was a scheme to validate baseless
claims repudiate just ones agreed OH
and do" me out of valuable prop
erty. made so by the fact that every
dollar of profits, averaging IA pei
cent for 10 years, had been left In the
business with the original investment
of s12 900 stock and $4,000 loan.
The defense was practically a CLAIM
of constructive consent on my par
to the swapping and the rest-.o the
swa inning because there had been oth'
or swaps NATURALLY concealed from me
under the circumstances) and because
| was an extensive snapper myseil
To make out the latter claim some
dozen hastily scrubbed letters were
dug from Is years files, referring u
swapping. / testified not as your re-
mort states, but that swapping notes
was the one thing ! drew the iiil'
against"-because of the danger o.
having to pay 100 per cent for the us'
of money, but admitted a large mum
her of check transactions with th'
company which might be called cheer
swappings, but were not in reallt!
because they were temporary laRiils'
Eout of over $4,000 | had loaned I'M
conpany as shown by my ledger, II
nv book keepers handwriting, care
ful,y checked and verified by her, ant
because of which it was agreed D!
directors that / might do this. (Agree
ment admitted but reason not re
membered.") AS to the letters, l tes
titled that all but two were 1ocula
references to these transactions an
those two referred to Crowell swaps
mt mine in any way, but wh1cn
hanpened to know about because the,
were to raise money to repay me 10
large assistances was rendering mn
at the time, and which produced IN
checks to show. Moreover, the letter
were not legal evidence anyway be
cause written years after the opera
ton in issue.
If you had stated these as the chie
claims and features of the case an
that the defense is that 1t is all out
lawed. besides denying the agree
: ments, and how the annual report
and statements didn't conflict VIII
Davenport's claims, you would nav
stated 1t correctly.
C. H. Davenport.
|, 1.-THE report in the Reformer OF Eel