OCR Text |
Show I APPEAL TO SUPREME . . COURT i After listening to Hip arguments of the attornoys regarding the validity j of the report of Assignee Pingree, In j the matter of the assignment of Bert j R. Bowman and Paul Lee, Judge Har- rls yestei'dny afternoon rendered n decision overruling the objections i raised by credltois and stated that the report would be taken Into con- j & sldcration soon after the August va- j -7 . cation of the coiirt Judge Horn gave ( notice that the objecting creditors ! would appeal from tbe decision of the court. ' It is nnticlpnto-j that the appeal may j be heard by the supreme court be- fore the time .set for the hearing of the assignee's report. If the judge should be reversed, it will change I considerably the phasr of the hearing on the report, because the report will i have to be changed to conform to the order of reversal, which woidd mean that accounts rejected' by the assignee assig-nee will be included with other ac-m,m ac-m,m counts. I In the course of his argument, in answer to the allegation of the pro- I testnnts that the assignee had been derelict in c 'Heeling accounts duo the defunct compnin, and that the as.' fclgnor. Bort Bowman, had proffered liis services in the collection of tiie accounts, Judge Willis took occasiOM ? to state that it was questionable I whether tbe services of Mr Bowman would be of advantage. 7I0 the assignee, assig-nee, judging from the s inanner In which he handled funds'" belonging to the company bpforc it failed. Ho In-; In-; timated that (here had been a mis- I appropriation of subscribers' raone and that something of that sort miglit occur if he weie given leeway in the collections after tbe failure In his decision Judge Harris stated 9 that ho thought the assjgnee acted m within the provisions of the law H "when he disallowed borne of the ac-jfll ac-jfll cojjjiLa. .because of alleged irregular I verification, and that bis account IH should not be amended or changed. H The court also stated that lie did not H , consider It necessary for the original 2B claims of the creditors to have been W filed with the report 01 at any time, H It being sufficient to ;lmply file "a HH statement" of tho claims, together jft with tho names of tho creditors. The 'w coiirt also construed the law regard-'JjH regard-'JjH ing tho matter of giving notice to , M creditors of tbe assignment to mean I V that notices should bo mailed to the I M individual creditors only when they 1 M wore known to tbe assignee, and, uo i fl said, it did not appear that tho as-'I as-'I M Rifitiee In this case know who they !Q 1 Regarding the matter of the asslg- 1 , nee fixing tho salary of the attorney 1 "i in the case nnd designating what the I fee of the assignee should be, the " court stated that ho looked upon the report in that respect as merelv sug- 1 gestive and that the court at tho final I hearing of tho report would fix tho : fees according, to the light of tho ', court respecting lhe. value of tho 1 .' services rendered. 1 , Judge Harris "said that the credi- , ors whose accounts had been disal- ' lowed by the assignee had no stand-I stand-I ; Jng In court under the proceedings 1 J . before the court nnd that their re-1 re-1 I dress would he In some other form ot I ' proceeding, elthor in a suit agaliiot I the assignee or, perhaps, i the a-1 a-1 tlon taken In hearirig and passing I ffl upon the report of tho assignee. 1 S oo I a 4 Mayor Glasmann and the Standard I "' Ml b8tlng for tho opora, 'Tinaforc " |