The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-11-15
FAILED TO REMOVE
RECEIVER EDWARDS
Hearing of the Affidavits
in Forrest Suit.
COM MRS TO SELL
Brook Empie and P. H. Busbee Ap
Appointed to Sell Property on Ian.
18th. E. S. Martin Named as
Examiner to Take Testimony
as to Receiver S Conduct
of Trust.

The first stage of the proceedings in
Forest ct al VS. The Southern Saw
Mill and Lumber Company came to
an end yesterday afternoon after an
All day session of the court with an
order of foreclosure appointing Brook
Empie, of Wilmington, and Phillip
Busbee. of Raleigh, commissioners TO
sell the property Of the defendant
corporation on January 18th at Kings
dale: and also another order 40
pointing f.. :. Martin, Esq, of Will
mington, 10 take testimony as To the
acts of the receiver and to report to
a later hearing by the court.
These orders came at the conclu-
sion of day spent in the reading
IF the bill of the complainant, the
answer and numerous affdavits by
each side 10 the controversy and af-
ter full argument by Iredell MeareS.
X. Il. Lee JAS. III. Pou and f. II. Bus
bee upon the question of the removal
of Receiver Edwards on charges Of
fraud and miSmanagement of the
property i'm his hands under order of
court.
Some of the affidavits of the COM
plainant were very damaging on their
&, face. although they were largely eX
planned by the answer of the receiver
which admitted many of the charges
but attempted TO show that the irregu-
lar acts were committed in good faith
and for the necessity of preserving
the property.
At the evening session of the court
Judge Pritchard stated from the
bench that the transactions OF Receiver
Edwards were shady" with respect
10 the matters set out in the Temple
affidavit but stated that the court
Il. l.
receiver with reference to his trust.
intimating that he would appoint a
special examiner to take further tes-
timony with regard to the matters in
dispute, this order as well as the
order OF foreclosure being made later
after the close of the argument.
The affidavit of DR.. Il. l.. Crumpler
was viciousy attacked upon the char
,acter of the matter thereof by coun-
ter aftidavits of the defendant re-
ceiver, which alleged that he had been
a convict and was in every way an
untrustworthy and irresponsible party.
Affdavits were filed by the COM
pia,nant from r l.: Temple, DR.. 2.
II. Crumpler. DR.. w. O. Edmund. A.
T. Parmale. hewitt Cox, r. r. Sizer &
Co, II. +. Aydlett. ID. T. McKithan,
j. y. Burd and others.
The affidavits stuck closely TO mat
terS alleged in the bill, which has
been heretofore published. They cited
instances i'm which the receiver had
used the certificates which he was
permitted to issue by the court as col
lateral on his personal noles,
alleged that he had attempt
i'm the shape OF receivers certificates
ed to borrow money on
other certificates, that he was interest
ed in the Builders and the Marietta
Lumber companies and had made va
rious transactions with these COM
Danies as receiver of the Southern
Saw Mill and Lumber Company, and
had sold lumber to these companies
at figures which enabled them to
sell the same at greatly increased
prices and that he had failed to use
the receivers certificates for the pur-
poses for which they were issued, no
tably the taking up of options on TIM
Der lands held by the saw mill COM
pany permitting some of these to
fall into the hands of rival companies
operating in the immediate vicinity IN
which the receiver was interested.
The answer of Receiver Edwards,
while admitting the truth of some of
the allegations of Irregularities al
legged in the bill and affidavits, con-
tended that all such acts We're done
by him for the purpose of benefittine
the company and not in any remote
way for his own personal gain OF
dement,. AS 10 the pldclllS ol cOllhtCi eil
i'm the shape of receivers certlhcates
to secure his personal notes, the an
swer averred that in each instance il
which this was done, the notes were
given for the purchase of timber foi
the use of the mill, the reason the
personal notes were given being thai
he had found it impossible otherwise
to negotiate or dispose of the certii-
Gates The allegations that he ha6
committed fraud in the management
of the property as receiver for the
benefit of either of the companies il
which he was personally interested
was bitterly denied in the answer. The
property. alleged Mr.. Edwards wa:
at the time of his appointment no
only insolvent but in state of com
pfete disrepair There was no lumber
ON hand and tho machinery was WOrl