The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1916-11-07
DECISION IN THE
McCUTCHEN CASE
Missing Receipt Affects Not
News From Court
House

bought goods of the Manhattan Gar
ment company of Dayton came to a
head in the court of Justice d. M.
Jones Thursday evening, reports the
Newark American-Tribune.
o. G. Warner, one of the men al
legged to have been victimized, and on
the advice Of his attorneys, Phil B.
Smythe and Ray Martin, filed an affi-
davit against three parties, alleging
that they secured money by false pre-.
lenses. The afIiant recites number
of facts recently stated in the news
article descriptive of the business
methods followed here.
The afIiant says that he was shown
samples Of cloth from which the suit
of clothes promised was to be made.
He says that they were to pay 30
cents per week in classes of sixty,
and each week one member of the
class was to be given a suit of
clothes. Warner relates that he has
paid out the SIS for the entire sixty
weeks and is still shivering for the
clothing He also alleges that the
suits of clothes received by other
members of his class have not been
made of the cloth shown in the sam
pie book
Constable Forgraves yesterday
landed man who gave the name of
w. p. Wolford. The other men named
in the affidavit have not yet been ap-
pretended but when they are, will be
charged with obtaining money by
false pretenses. Wolford appeared
before Justice Jones and asked that
the matter be continued till he could
prepare for trial A short postpone
ment was allowed and the man was
released on his giving $500 bond.
The plot is thickening about the
Manhattan Garment people. All of
the parties who subscribed to the
scheme have banded together and
have retained the above named at
torneys. The case Of Warner against
the three men is in the nature of a
test case on the alleged criminal fea
ture of the case. If it wins there will
be number of others make similar
charges against the men representing
the Manhattan Garment Company"
corporation organized with lin
tied capital under the laws of Ohio.
Decision in VIII Case
Judge Blair has handed down a de
cision in the case of G. e. McCutch.
en-, administrator Of A. B. McCutchen,
VS.. Walter McCutchen.
He calls attention to will of de-
cedent in which certain heirs were to
receive certain sums Of money in
conformity with the provisions that
the children should be made equal,
as shown by receipts held by deced-
ent.
This would indicate, the decision
states, that two grand-daughters,
Martha e. Parsons and Mamie Miller,
had been charged with an advance
ment of $1,000, but no such receipt
has been found, and these grand
daughters claim that such advance
ment was never made and ask that
the payment be made to them.
The decision states that, according
to the rule of the law, if the will fixes
the amount of the advancement, the
amount thus fixed will govern, wheth-
er this be the true amount or not.
Judge Blair directs that, after the
payment of legacies of $4,000 to Wal
ter McCutchen, $500 to Martha E.
Parson, $500 to Mamie Miller and $75
to William McCutchen, the residue
of the estate shall be divided into six
equal shares and paid to the children
of A. B. McCutchen; the son, William
McCutchen, having died, his share is
| n.