The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-04-25
LEGAL STRUGGLE
 FAST APPROACHES Greatest Batch of Damage
 Suits Ever Known THE KNIGHT FAILURE History of Interesting Cases-While Cases Against Railroads Are Set
 It Is Not Believed They
 Will Be Reached
THE KNIGHT FAILURE
BY ROY O'NEAL


 Huntsville, April 24.-(Special.)- )-The
 greatest batch of damage suits ever in-
 stituted In the federal court of this dis
 trict have been placed on the docket for
 hearing at the term of court convened
 last night by Judge W. I. Grubb of the northern division of the northern district of Alabama.
 The plaintiffs in these suits are some
 40-odd American, English, German, Italian
 and French cotton brokerage houses who
 were victimized by the failure of Knight. Yancey & Co.,, cotton brokers at Deca- tur, and the defendants are the South ern railroad and the Louisville and Nash vile railroad. The aggregate amount claimed in this litigation and of which the complainants claim to have been de- frauded through the means of spurious bills of lading for cotton runs well over s4,00o,0O0.
 Court officials here have made prepar- ations for term not exceeding five days and 1t Is the. general impression that trial of these cases will not be reached, though a motion will be made by coun- sel for the prosecution to remand the cases to the Morgan county law and equity court In which they originated. It is not believed that the charges against John W, Knight. managing part ner of the failed firm, who has been in dicted for fraudulent use of the United States mails, will be reached either. There is a vast amount of evidence to be offered in these cases and a trial would occupy probably not less than a week.
 The suits against the Louisville and Nashville railroad number "A and aggre- gate about s2,50ooooO. The complainants are as follows Nicholson & wrigley, Herbert, Warren & Co.,, J. Milligan & Go. Minopria. Forgan & Co.,, Smith, Edwards & Co.,, Robertson. Murdock & Co.,, Charles Fouinguoinois & Co.,. F. Dorel, Kreymber & Breymer, A Y. Patton & Co.,, C. Gebruder. Fritzier & Co, Knopp & Fabanius. Dennis & Brown. William. Lorenz Rubens & Co.,, Longmore Bros. Pennefather & Co.,, Hannay & Co.,, Alexander Eccles & Co.,, c. A. Gruner & Co.,, IT. Mischoff & Co., Russo Chinese Bank and the National lark bank
 The suits against the Southern rail- way, 13 in number, aggregate about $1 100000 The complainants are: Her man Decker, William, Wilson & Co.,. Nicholson & Wrigley, Allen Robinson. A. Hanney 6 Co.,, Minoprio, Forgan & Co.,, A. N. Patton & Co.,. Pennefather & Co.,, Longmore Bros, Belton & Fenton, Emanuel Maac. Russo Chinese bank and Alexander Eccles &, Co.
 The allegations are practically the same in all the suits and all of them will stand or fall as one test case is decided The complaint alleges failure on the part of the defendant railroad to deliver cotton which was received by defendant as common carrier to be delivered to a connecting railroad or steamship company. Bills of iading 1t is claimed, were issued by the de- fendant for cotton though the said cotton had not been received by de- fendant and the bills of lading were Issued as if said cotton had been re- ceived for shipment. Plaintiff alleges that he paid drafts for the amount of money representing the value of this cotton, drawn by Knight, Yancey & Co, believing that the goods described in the bills of lading had been received for carrige by the defendant.
 Plaintiff allege that they purchased cotton from Knight, Yancey & Co.,. who were at that time engaged in the cotton business at Decatur and it was understood that the cotton would be delivered by the said Knight, Yancey & Co.,, to some common carrier and would receive from the common carrier bills of lading for the cotton which be- ing duly Sndorsed. Knight, Yancey & Co. would attach to drafts drawn against the plaintiff or against hls agents and the drafts would be paid within so days. The name of a duly accredited agent of the defendant would appear on these drafts, purporting to evidence the receipt by the defendant of the cotton in number of bales, weight and marks described in the bills.
 At the time these bills of lading were issued purporting to evidence receipt by the defendant of the cotton therein described, the defendant had not re- ceived any of the cotton so described, the bill further charges, and it has -