Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-09-13
proved to establish bankruptcy in these


proceedings.
The first point, said counsel. is the trans
fer of property from debtor to creditor.
which would involve proof that the prop
erty had belonged to the debtor. The sec
ond point was the intent OF debtor to pre-
fer creditor, and the third point was PROOF
that the debtor was fnsolyent at the time
Of the transfer. The first of these points
was made by Mr.. Bonaparte yesterday al
ternoon, as stated in The Star, when he de-
clared that Mr.. Waggaman merely acted In
fiduciary capacity.
Notwithstanding the claim of Mr.. Mat
tingly that Woodley Park was purchased
in 1887 by Mr.. Waggaman, five years be-
fore he became trustee for the Cathoic
University. Mr.. Bonaparte insisted that
Woodley Park was acquired with the
money of that institution and his entire
claim to title seemed to be based on that
fact
ut makes no difference said Mr.. Bona
parte, whether our identical dollars went
into the purchase of this particular prop
erty. 1t is sufficient that Mr.. Waggaman
accepted our money to invest and among
the securities obtained by him is Woodley.
The equitable title was always In the uni
versity and never in Mr.. Thomas r. Wag-
CANAAN.
Mr.. Mattingly. in his argument yesterday,
said that a transfer made by an insolvent
was conclusive proof that the debtor In
tended to prefer the creditor to whom the
transfer was made. This Mr.. Bonaparte
denied today. declaring that the intent was
to be presumed only in rebuttal In the ao-
sence of any proof to the contrary Coun-
sci quoted several authorities on the point.
and then reverted to the discussion OF Mr.
Waggaman's alleged insolvency.
Calls for Proof Of Insolvency.
HAS there been any proof that Mr.. Wag-
gaman was insolvent when the transfer OF
the deed of trust, approximating $9U.V0
was made?" asked Mr.. Bonaparte. he
might have been hopelessly insolvent when
his answer in these proceedings was hled'
and entirely solvent two weeks earlier, OF
July 49, when he made the transfer. July
13 Mr. waggaman said he believed he was
worth a million dollars over and above MS
assets.
Have we any right to assume that ne was
lying-or that he was grossly ignorant aS
to the condition of his estate? Decloeoiy
not The burden of proving insolvency ~
upon the petitioners, and they nave nol
done this. as to the time the transfer mao
made, therefore, there cannot be pre-
sumption that Mr.. Waggaman 1ntenued W
prefer the Catholic University as creo,tol;
The deduction must be, then, that the oeeo
to the institution Is valid.
Mr. Bona parte concluded ms argument dt
1880 O'Clock, at which time recess was
taken until lis o'clock. In resting ms
case Mr.. Bonaparte stated tnat ne olo no'
care whether Mr., Waggaman was auJuu.
Gated a bankrupt or not, provided such al
Indication would not fnvaltdate the deeo
of trust given the Catholic University. he,
however, advised delay until the latter part
of this month, that the Adjudication might
be had on the petition filed yesterday. This
as before stated, is returnable on the 80
instant, which, with the necessary lapse OF
five days. would bring the ADJUDICATION
September %.
Mr.. Hamilton's Argument. .
Mr. George E. Hamilton of counsel for
the Catholic University occupied the after
noon session of the court and confined
himself almost exclusively to a discussion
OF the pleadngs. He declared it to be
matter of pleading rather than OF proof.
and that the papers, both petitions and
answers, contained no basis upon which
rupt.
covered by his fellow-counsel, Mr.. Bona
parte. and in conclusion seconded Mr.. Bona
parties suggestion that action be had Sep
TENDER % on another petition pending, He,
said If there was any fear as to the safety
of the funds a temporary receiver could be
appointed.
Mr.. Hamilton denied the right of the
court to consolidate the cases before him
in line with the suggestion made by
the court at the opening of the morning
session.
Mr.. Mattingly followed Mr.. Hamilton
and answered the contentious and ques-
tions of pleading raised by Messrs. Bona
parte and Hamilton. He had not con-
cluded when adjournment was taken.