Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1915-05-25
WEBSTER CITY MEN
ARE INDICATED
Case of Hubbard vs.. Valentine Set.
tied in so Far as They are
Concerned.


argued and submitted to Judge VIII
lett at an extra session of court an
the judge announced that he woul
rule on it in few days. He did rul
on it insofar as E. E. Valentine an,
Wesley Martin of Webster City ar
concerned.
He announced while the argu
ments were in progress that he hat
found nothing in the case tina
would warrant finding against these
two defendants. When the argu
ments were ended he practically de-
cided the case insofar as they are
concerned by saying no showing haG
been made to substantiate the
charge of conspiracy and duress in
volving the elder Valentine and his
attorney, Martin.
''The only question remaining in
my mind is as to the outcome of the
contention in this case between R.
c. Valentine and Hubbard" said
Judge Willett.
During the arguments Judge Will
lett questioned the attorneys from
time to time for an Interpretation of
certain phases of the case. He ask
ed E. N. Farber for an explanation
of the reasons why Hubbard remain
ed silent about his alleged wrongs at
the hands of R. c. Valentine from
August until January before COM
planning or bringing suit to recover.
''It is not unreasonable to pre-
sume," argued the lawyer in reply,
'9that with Valentine still in this
community, with these checks and
vouchers in Valentines possession,
with Hubbard, his wife and their
relatives all subject to the dire eff
fects of the charges Valentine was
making against Hubbard, even if
they were not true, that Hubbard
kept silent through fear, and did as
he did and told no one, not even his
wife, until he confided in his law
yer"
A great deal of the argument of
E. N. Farber and his associate coun-
sci, F. e. Northup, was on the point
that the Consumers Oil Company
was insolvent when Hubbard bought
Valentines stock and had always
been insolvent. This contention was
warmly denied by testimony and ar
gument of the defense.
Northup argued that Hubbard
bought a losing and dying business
when he took Valentines stock.
cit had been the policy of young
Valentine" argued Northup, "to
avoid the payment of his debts. His
business had no stability. 1t had no
good will. 1t had no going value,
and unless its agents went out and
got business no business came to it."
Reading from the report of the
plaintiffs expert accountant, he said
"March 81, 1918, the company owed
more than $4,000. How can it be
said this business was solvent?"
''This plaintiff stands here dis
credited by his own witnesses and
the record of this case. He came
here an admitted embezzler to the
extent of $1,400.
Had Hubbard wanted to be hon {
est and square with r. c. Valentine, s
and had wanted to draw those sums
out of the corporation, he would
have drawn these checks payable to {
himself and not to banks. The tes- {
timony shows, and I repeat it, that {
there are $1,740 worth of Hubbard c
checks in this court that never have
been explained.
Hubbard was suffering from a
case Of over imitation of the noodle. &;
That's proved by his automobile de-
bauch with a party Of six for two
weeks when he had balance of only
$21 in one bank and an overdraft of {
$40 in another" Boardman contin- c
ued sarcastically. G
July 2, the day Hubbard left on a
his vacation, is the date of one of n
these checks for $3.50. That was I
the money he took with him on the
trip" he continued. q
"These checks left by Valentine +
for the payment of pressing current g
bills" Boardman went on. Club a
bard took them to pay himself" a
Hubbard knew that if he bought n
Valentines stock he would not have
to pay the overdraft he had created
in his personal account with the =
company.
81 have no doubt that, rather than J.
have his wife, relatives, and the pub AZ
lie know the truth, Hubbard decided :
to buy the stock. He and Valentine "
made an agreement to this effect. =
Hubbard was to buy the stock and 4
Valentine was to retire and keen his y