The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-08-06

Informed of the fact that the injunction papers had been served and that the United States mar shal was on his way to serve them, Judge Peasley proceeded with the opening of bids and the final sale proceedings, declaring that last minute telephone information of this sort, plus the fact that the papers had not been actually serv- ed, did not warrant him postponing the sale, which had been adver- tised for some time.
 Buckle Co. Buys It
 The plant was sold to the Wa terbury Buckle company for $50,- 900, plus the real estate taxes due the city amounting to $42,257.49 the personal property taxes owed the city amounting to $25,724.91, if they constitute a preferred claim, and 75 cents on the dollar on all accounts receivable. The factory was appraised at $446,000 by su- perior court experts.
 The chambers of Judge Peasley were crowded to capacity as the bids were opened. The Universal Liquilating company, Inc, of New York offered $50,000, outright, for the factory. The Turner and Sey- mour company of Torrington offer ed $I2,500 for the nail factory. The National Acceptance corporation of Detroit asked for time to present bid but this was objected to by the other bidders on the grounds that their figures had already been made public.
 No Phantom Bids
 Declaring that the court could not entertain phantom bids" Judge Peasley ordered the sale of the factory to the Waterbury Buckle company, over the objec- tions of Attorney David Day of Bridgeport, representing the Bank of Manhattan company and the Guaranty Trust company of New York
 Attorney Day declared that the price for which the factroy was being sold was not satisfactory one. He added that no exigency was shown and contested the right, therefore, of the court to pass on the sale now instead of having it held at regular session in September.
 Attorney Lawrence L. Lewis and Attorney Richardson Bronson ap- peared for the receiver, MT Shel- don. The former stated that an exigency does exist in that there is no money with which to con- tinue the business.
 Move To Waterville
 Asked by Corporation Counsel Charles $. O'Connor if the Wa terbury Buckle company planned to continue operations at the Beardsley and Wolcott plant, Ju- Illus B. Smith. president of the for mer concern stated, in response to an added question of the same na- ture from Judge Peasley that it is planned to move much of the Buckle company's operations to the Waterville plant.
 This information was considered important in view of the number of persons now employed in both plants.
 Judge Denied Request
 Attorney Day asked that a stay on the sale of the property be granted by the court until the question of proirities of certain tAC 4NCW banks, be decided. The request was denied by Judge Peasley.
 Attorney Bronson stated that the sale should go through immediate ly as the matter came up in court some time ago before Judge Ed win c. Dickenson and was con- tinued so as to give Judge Peasley an opportunity to handle and su- pervise the sale personally.
 Receiver Sheldon state: we have tried to sell the plant from time to time and have offered a settlement to the banks. They felt that the REC loan that was con- templated would aid us. As a re- suit of this we continued operations but we cannot go on any longer"
 Wcisman Questions Right
 Attorney Henry J. Weisman. ap- bearing for the creditors who filed the papers with Judge Hincks in the federal court and obtained the