| Show I W Ilk I I IF 1i I-lk A 1 i I I GEO M 071 FIRURE m TI I I I 4 r I I Hearing of Motion to Set Aside a Number of I I 4 I 1 Attachments J I I 41I 41 I I lvq I 1 it MUCH TIME CONSUMED IN ARGUMENTS l I I I I t I If 1 1 I 1 q I III 8p rf ecoort Decision In I all Irrigation I f I Col31 1111 Tk1tt auu f I R1 j j I I I fJIuhallraollorth S 1 4 t I tt 41 p I i 1 I r e I T I Judge lilies has been occupied nearly I I ilL the whole of today taking testimony il-L I I i j 1 I and healing arguments upon the motion I 1t t I I mo-tion of led M Scott company to j > 1011 ellsiolvo the halt dozen or moro at mn1t tl 11t 11 il I I tachmcnts of attaching creditors also I Il ij I l I C thc petition of Hugh Anderson ns assignee who asks that I Sheriff Levvli I Iq I be required to return to him the attached I r r l I i tached propel ty lly consent all ot r IH I I i Iii the cunei are being tried together I L r I Tho attaching creditors Include Wells I t I 41 Targo i company the Notional Hank I 14 I I I of the Jlepubllc and Jloge Duly K I il t q joompinv ot Montana whose cullna 1 ll 0 114f > reregnto r about 111000 I I 1 jl t Marshall llojlo A llcmpstend Dey I I t r 11 i i ik P Street Young Movie and llooth il II1 I I fh Lee t Oral appear for the attnchlnK I I I creditors btckson Kills 1111 for Ji I 4 0 tl i I it 11 i j 4A leo M Scott company and lien I 11 I o I nnett llarkness Howot llradley S r 11 I I I e 41 JJ 1 lllchards for the assignee I t ifr Counsel for the attaching creditors I I J kf4 claim that certain preferences In th it t 0 l assignment II are fraudulent Including 11 I I I the prefurenee to the Tinvelero I In r rol I I Jtf r Buranco company for 40000 I i jll R1 1 Quite n little time was consumed In i Mn liff 0 f II lintony arguing I the Judge maleilallty Marshall of said certain that tell In Ii l I I At I the pat allll before the assignment t i 1 members of the om M Scott Co I i fl I a I corporation had I diverted JI mlsap I f 1 I Propriated for other uses than theme ul ti I M I I UeoMl Scott Co largo amounts ot 1111 j t l a i the money t Profit of RrJ latter I I company as tending to show actual l lfJI I I fraud In the mklnlllll tile aImnl I li 11 f but It was objected to bv the attorneys i i I It gli for Gen M Scott Co as Immaterial I t Ooil IJrt al k t I I jJ and the court sustained the I IJ 11 At t if Ht I I objection holding that Under the 1 j 1 statute of 1M7 such n state I of the ijJ t t 4 case would not Invalidate the assignment 3 I J i assign-ment That the vice of the assignment r tR I 1 If any must be proved to be In the as I 0 11 I if I I Elgnment Itself and that former misuses I do r ll It 1 I I uses ot the money of the corporation 14I t I Nil lf 11 II I 111 were e bract41 not competent In One of evidence the five and grounds not I ilii00 i1 t I < 11 mOIl In the statute mlilch might b I 0 I < Y rged Aralinot the IIItIIlnl to make l t pl I t j I I be name void |
