Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-12-18

the bonds that you are entitled to
had been delivered to you. 1 have no
bonds In my possession now on which
you have any claim that am aware
of. / shall take this matter up at
once with Mr.. Quinby and try to ar
rive at some definite conclusion with
regard to it. Very truly yours,
WILLIAM HUGHES.
Mr.. w. U. Pearne, Middletown,
Conn:
Dear Sir-Replying to your letter of
recent date with reference to the
Long Island property, I beg to say
that neither the bonds nor the trus-
tees receipts therefor have been
issued as yet. This matter is in the
hands of Mr.. George Murray Brooks,
of 43 Wall street, New York city, and
| am as anxiously awaiting the news
with reference to the matter as you
are, as l am trustee for all the stock
and bonds of the corporation except
that which goes into the treasury,
which is held by the Citizens Trust
Company of Paterson, N. J. Under
the arrangement with your people ]
am not to issue the bonds, but the
trustees receipt therefor, as one OF
the conditions on which the money
was subscribed by the Paterson
people was that the subscribers
bonds should be held, and not offered
for sale, so that they wouldn't inter
fere with the fiotation of the treasury
bonds of the corporation. / will COM
municate with you as son as / re-
ceive word from Mr.. Brooks. Very
truly yours,
WILLIAM HUGHES.
February 49, 1911
Mr.. w. u. Pearne, Middletown, Conn.
Dear Sir-Replying to your letter OF
February IL, 1911, beg to say that |
have not confused the transaction al
all. 1t occurred exactly as l stated
in my letter to you. My reason fol
not replying to your last letter was
that l understood that Mr.. Brooks
had done so. l will send your letter
to him and have him communicate
with you on the subject. Very truly
yours, WILLIAM HUGHES.
Paterson, N j., Oct. 10, 1911.
Mr.. Otto A. Gillig, New York city:
Dear Sir-Replying to your letter
of recent date would state that 1 have
seen Mr.. Quimby several times since
| saw you and told him that you
would probably take the matter III
with him, but so far as 1 know you
haven't done so. L tried to explain
to you when you were here that there
was no opportunity for Mr.. Quinby t.
misunderstood anything about thai
transaction because. he was not pres
emit. There was no room for me tc
misunderstood it, either. The mis-.
understanding seems to have been or
the part of the people you represent
The proposition was a clean cut one
from my point of view. l received q
certain amount of money as a loan
giving your people paper calling for
the delivery of certain securities
which 1t was understood at that time
so far as 1 am concerned, and so far
as | know by everybody concerned
that they were to be held as collateral
to secure the return of the money
The money was afterward paid and
so far as my knowledge of the trans
action goes that is all there Is to it
That is Mr.. Quinby's understanding
of 1t, because that is what | fold him
about it, as he himself, not being
present knew nothing about what oc-
Cured. l did not say that there Is no
question as to Mr.. Hurd's title to the
bonds at the time of the assignment
by him to Mr.. Longworth as | know