The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-08-03
STEVENSON MAKES
SAVAGE ATTACK
ON RECEIVER
TALKS OF PERJURY IN coNNEc-
TIoN WITH SUIT AGAINST HAY.
DEN, STONE & co.-JUDoE MAN.
DELL CONTINUES INJUNCTION.

After hard-fought verbal battle be-
tween attorneys before Judge Man
dell. Saturday morning. the court con
tinued the injunction granted on the
petition of Receiver IF. G. Austin, IN
behalf of the creditors OF Cameron
Currie & Co., restraining Hayden
Stone 4 Co., OF Boston. from dispos
ing OF the million and a half OF secur
tiles pledged with them by the bust
| ed" brokerage firm.
This action was taken only after
Attorney Elliott G. Stevenson, fol-
Hayden. Stone & Co., had protested
most strongly against the continuance
of the restraining order, assailing the
receiver In harsh terms and asserting
that the court has no Jurisdiction.
The injunction IL to continue until
! Hayden, Stone d Co. come into court
TO answer 10 the bill OF the receiver
and prove their claim OF $4,000
against the pledged stocks.
The courts action was accepted by
the lawyers gathered as STAYING OF
bankruptcy proceedings Hayden
now only in open defiance OF the
court, and such action is not expected,
at least unless there should be great
decline in the stock market.
The court room was crowded with
attorneys representing claims against
Cameron CuYrie 4 Co. Only a few of
the attorneys spoke and these all ask
ed the court to maintain the intunc-
ton and thus preserve the rights OF
the customers OF the brokerage from.
The anxiety was we'll explained by
Attorney F. w. Stevens. for the re-
ceiver, who declared that most OF
the assets of Cameron Currie Il Co..
were In Hayden, Stone 4 Co.'S hands,
and that their sale would greatly jeop-
ardize the rights OF creditors.
Stevenson 10 Bitter.
Z. G. Stevenson made the first talk.
He told Judge Mandeli that the action
of Receiver Austin in bringing action
against Hayden. Stone & co. was
gratuitous impertinence." The re-
ceiver had no right to establish pre-
ferred claims, he asserted, but should
rather fight them.
The receiver, Stevenson commended,
stands in the position Of Cameron Cur
rie & Co. and cannot attack the valid
ity of transactions made by the latter
firm which 1t could not itself attack.
Taking the bill of complaint up In
detail, he declared that 1t is a mass
Of vague charges and allegations un-
supported by affidavits or proof and
not worthy of being the basis OF an
injunction. He further attacked It's
soundness by saying that 1t was not
properly sworn to by Receiver Austin.
This Is not merely technical"
Stevenson declared impressively. If
this bill had been verified properly, a
complaint for perjury would have been
filed by this time"
Creditors cannot avail themselves OF
the receivers help in fighting Hayden.
Stone & Co.. he added. and must as
sert their rights by suing the latter In
the Massachusetts courts.
while the fund stays ont of the
hands Of the receiver and out of the
Jurisdiction of the court. the receiver
cannot, by invitation to the creditors
TO file claims, confer jurisdiction on
this court" he further asserted. They
have foreclosed themselves with re-
gard to these securities by the ale
CATION that Hayden. Stone & Co. are
amply responsible"
The receiver did not have the
courage to ask for an Injunction. Z"
Stevenson asserted, but asked for one
II the court deem such action proper"
Stevenson finally urged that the
only action the court could take would
be to have the receiver request the
sale of the stocks and allow the ex-
cess over Hayden. Stone & Co.'S claim
to be paid into court.
The most bitter attack made on Re
ceiver Austin by Stevenson came
when the latter asserted that an at
tempt was being made to play into
the hands of the preferred creditors
as against the general creditors.
Rebuked by Court.
AT one time Judge Mandell rebuked
Stevenson for the defiant nature of
his replies to the courts request for
information.
f. W. Stevens, counsel for the re-
ceiver. went after Stevenson hard. say
ing that the transformation IN the at
ttude Of Hayden. Stone & Co.'S rep
resentative from indifference to belii.
gerency was due to fear lest a hear.
ing might increase the liability OF the
Boston firm.
The receiver represents the inter-
ests or all creditors. Stevens assert.
ed, and had the right to question the
deals by which Hayden, Stone & Co.
secured possession Of these stocks.
No writing among the papers of Cam
eron Currie & Co. showed any con.
tract giving such rights.
The receiver can find no scratch
OF the pen to that effect" said Ste
vens. 1t may be that all these Sc
curities are held only by implied
right or oral agreement"
He argued the right OF the court
to dispose OF the matter and defended
the bill Of complaint as setting ub a
chain OF circumstances tending to
show such state OF things as to
warrant the receivers action.
Harrison 0eer argued for continu-
ance OF the injunction. as did also
F.. II. Garfield, who said that. II the
sale is to be allowed to 20 on and
Hayden, Stone & Co. to keep all they
claim, other creditors might as well
drop their suits.
Pounds Argument
James III. Pound declared that the
purpose OF the court is to protect the
people. and that II would not be
doing so by forcing the claimants to
go to Boston with their cases to
sue the firm OF Hayden, Stone & Co
individually. He asked that the case
be settled here. and that Hayden.
Stone a. Co. be forced TO show that
they have a real right to the large
interest they claim In the assets.
Judge Mandell asked the attorneys