The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-07-24
Oliver ChaIifoux Files Cross Bill
 for Receiver
TAKES FLING AT BROTHER
Alleges That Allegations of j. L. chaIi- foux Are In Pursuance of Previ- ous Threats to Ruin
 His Brother.

city court to the bill of complaint pre-
 yiously filed by his brother. J. |. Chal-
 ifoux, asking for the appointment of
 receiver for the local firm in Birming- | ham.
 1 In the original bill It was alleged that Oliver J. Chalifoux was guilty of cer- l tain Irregularities in the conduct of the | business and had violated an agreement | existing between the partners J. L. and | OAver J. Chalifoux, and that the re- | spondent had neglected the business for l the past six months and had drawn ! checks against the firm without the 1 knowledge of the complainant, and had
 drawn money out of the firm to purchase | the lease on a store in the city for tha purpose of opening a business on his
 own account. To all these statements
 and allegations the respondent directs
 his answer.
 Wanted to lnjure Brother.
 After admitting the truth of the allega- | tons contained In the first, second and | third paragraphs, In answer to the fourth | paragraph. respondent says: That differ | ences have arisen between the partners and that the intervention of court of
 equity is necessary to settlement of the
 account between them and agrees that a | receiver be appointed pending the adjust | bent but alleges that the reasons given | by the complainant are to his knowledge
 untrue and were by him manufactured | for the purpose of injuring the respond
 ent and In pursuance of a threat and
 a proclaimed intention on the part of | the complainant to ruin the respondent 1 and for no better reason than that tho | respondent desires the dissolution of the l partnership heretofore existing between | complainant and himself; that respondent 1 proposes to go into business for himself
 in another location; that the store in which the present business was carried l on is out of the business center and bad
 ly located, that the building belongs to
 the complainant Individually, but the
 storle, furniture and fittings belong to the | firm and that the assets of the firm now
 consist mainly in claims against fire ir- surance companies and some other assets
 which the court will inquire into
 To Prejudice Public World. | respondent says that the averments are,
 to the knowledge of the complainant,
 false in the light In which they are | presented with the intention to injure
 respondent, and to prejudice the bus
 mess world against him. complainant having previously expressed his intention | to ruin respondent and that the ingenious
 method in which complainant has made
 use Of the perfectly legitimate acts of | the respondent discover his purpose to
 carry out said intention.
 | Respondent ayers that the method of
 bookkeeping used by the firm was per
 fectly proper and that the distribution
 of the profits was to be one-third to re- | spondent and two-thirds to complainant,
 and that the court will do the very thing
 of which the complainant has willfully, premedltatedly and mallclously made com
 plaint in pursuance of his threat to ruin I respondent. It is also aVerred that re- | spondent does not know that any losses | occurred in the business and that com plainant Is equally ignorant, and that | such knowledge can only be had by the accounting prayed for In the bill, and | that the complainant well knew this at the time he made the willful premedi- | tated and malicious charges against the respondent which he knew full well would get into the public prints and be herald ed broadcast to the great injury of the resopndent In pursuance of his expressed intention to ruin respondent.
 Had Right to Draw Checks. Respondent admits he drew the checks believing he had a right to do so, and
 that the court will so decide; that he had drawn thousands of checks during the seventeen years he has been in Bir- mingham for over $3,OO0, ,0O0; that this was done with the Knowledge of the com plainant who would now have the infer ence drawn that the respondent had done something wrong in drawing a check on
 the funds of the firm. Respondent also states that complainant had all the funds
 of the firm placed to his own individual credit but seeing the absurdity of this step, afterwards restored the funds to the credit of the firm. It is also stated that for a long time before the filing of the bili the compliant had placed an embargo on the funds of the firm by directing the bank not to honor any checks drawn by respondent and that respondent, a long time before the filing of the bill of complaint, had delivered to compliant all the books, papers and accounts of the firm, seeing no reason why he. a member of the firm should not have custody of said books and pa pers until the appointment of receiver. and that the prayer of the complainant for an injunction to restrain respondent was grand stand play, and that the absence of said books and papers was a disadvantage to respondent in filing his answer.
 Slump Not Due to Neglect.
 Respondent denies that the falling off in business Is due to any neglect on h;s part, but that the retail clothing bus mess las shifted to another part of the city an6 that it was that account re- spondent wanted to set up in business for himself in another location; it is also stated that the first six months in anu profits are small during that time.
 Respondent prays that his answer be | taken In the nature of a cross bill. and | also prays for the appointment of a | receiver, a dissolution of the partner sIilp and that the case be referred to | the register for an accounting between |