! 1 3^- i E. BKADFORD, VERSUS ^iESSRS. TAYLOR h GATES. FRAliOyLEliT IfiiSACTIONS [XPOM AN APPEAL TO GET JUSTICE. » 't ^k^k^m^Uim^ 7 TO ALL LOVERS OF JUSTICE. I appeal, because my cause is just. Read the following facts, and you will find they not only are of moment to myself but to every person who may by hard and persevering industry endeavor to gain property. If this property so gained can be taken from you un- justly by law then you are not safe, a . law is intended for the admin- istration of justice. Such laws as fail in this respect should be remedied. I have been in business in Toronto for about thirty years, and during that time by energy and strict attention I had gained money, how much will appear in the following state- ments, and how much was unjustly taken from me by false witnesses, of the fruits of the best working years of my life. In order to give you a true idea of the case as it was and now stands, read carefully the following : ,. LETTER TO MY LAWYERS. Gentlemen, — The following is a statement giving the points in a case in which I wish you to take action : 1st. Taylor & Gates sued Mrs. Bradford for an account and got judgment against her for ($10,101.00) ten thousand, one hundred and one dollars. They swore that R. Bradford had no account with them, and that the collaterals R. B. gave them were to secure Mrs. Bradford's account with Taylor & Oates. Taylor & Oates gave the collaterals to the b .nk as follows : ist. Deed of a lot 52 feet on Wellesley Street from Mrs. Bradford to Taylor & Oates for ($1,800.00) eighteen hundred dollars to secure them, in case of loss ; this was the price agreed upon, as shown by deed, Taylor & Oates sued the account, and the bank sold the lot for ($1,600) sixteen hundred dollars on account of Taylor & Oates* liability to the bank. Question, — who in justice should be the looser of this ($200) two hundred dollars? Should not Mrs. Bradford get credit from Taylor & Oates for this $1,800 in full and interest on the same from, the date of deed, as Taylor & Oates used this property in the bank for their own accommodation ? 2nd. The mortgage made by R. Bradford for $4,250 to Taylor & Oates, they swore in Court was collateral for Mrs. Bradford's account ; this mortgage covered the two properties then owned by R. Bradford. After the mortgage was made R. Bradford made a deed of one lot, viz.: 5 stores near Sherbourne Street on King, to Mrs. R.Bradford for signing her dowry. This mortgage was given by Taylor & Oates to the bank to cover their liabilities to the bank, unknown to R. Bradford. The bank sold the above mentioned property under ^ower .p£ the mortgage for ($17,000) seventeen thousand dollars (subject to'pris^vious mortgage of $16,000) to one Oates and took a mortgage to secure the same. Thus it appears that the bank would have a surplus of ($12,750) twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars over and above the am.ount of mortgage given by R. Bradford, The bank has also collected in rents about ($4,726.36) four thousand, seven hua^,red and twenty six dollars and thirty six cents, over and above interest, insurance and taxes. 3rd. Now if the bank received or realized enough out of Mrs. Bradford's property to pay them $4,250 which is all they could claim on their mortgage, R.Bradford's liabilities should end and the bank should not have sold his property or they should return the proceeds over and above $4,250, amount of mortgage. 4th. It now. appears that Boswell & Defoe have bought the property, viz.: 2 lots (10) ten stores on King Street and three houses on Frederick Street for ($30,000) thirty thousand dollars. What did they pay for each } Did they pay enough for Mrs. Bradford's property on King Street to pay the bank its $4,250.'* What should the bank do with the surplus over and above the $4,250, under which mortgage the property was sold ? The Registry Office will have records of what each lot was mortgaged for, or what each lot brought when sold to Boswell & Defoe. 5 th. Should the first mortgage of $17,000 taken by the bank be taken as a basis by which to settle, or the last sale of $30,000, for there was a mortgage to Trust & Loan Co. of $16,000 before the one of $4,250 given to the bank ? 6th. Was the property sacrificed ^ Defoe says there h $600.00 over and above interest on $30,000.00 at the low rents they now bring. 7th. It is clear that if Taylor & Gates choose to swear R. Brad- ford out of Court, and Mrs. Bradford in, and get judgment again.st her, that he should not be held liable when her own property was sufficient to pay the debt, secured by . Drtgage given by R. B. for Mrs. Bradford, and his property should not have been sold. 8th. So this is the way the case stands, and if the bank again sold the property at a loss, or for $3,000 less than they sold it under the mortgage given by R.Bradford should he suffer the loss? Or in other words if a man once owns a property should he be held responsible for the rise or fall in value of said property for all time or the folly or liberality of a bank to its friends } Or another view, supposing the judgment to be correct it would appear as follows : Mrs. Bradford's Account. IMPERIAL BANK. Cr. By securities not credited on judgment % 1,800 00 second securities not credited on judgment 4.250 00 Surplus rents 4.726 00 1 1 10,776 36 To judgment Taylor & Oates .... 10,101 00 By Balance 675 36 By costs paid taxed above 650 00 This would be the judgment balance coming to M^s. B^dford^^^. 1.325 36 Of the above $10,776.36 then the|fi«?rrtney nave given no credit on the judgment of $10,101 which is^still bearing interest. So that we are paying interest on $10,101 when we should really have interest on $1325.36. According to the above account it appears that the property should not have been sold as the judgment was fully paid. ACCOUNT OF RENTS. 29 MONTHS. No. Bent per mo. 205 King btreet East. ftl2 00 » 348 00 By Loan, $ 16.000 00 207 " " 12 00 348 00 " Judgment 10,101 GO 209 *• *• 22 00 638 00 '• Interest, 3,784 64 211 " ♦• 25 00 725 00 " Taxes, 696 00 213 " •• 30 00 870 00 " Insurance 348 00 231 •• *• 35 00 IOI5 00 233 " *' 23 00 667 00 235 20 00 580 00 237 " " 25 00 725 00 • 239 25 00 725 00 44 Frederick Street. 12 00 348 00 46 ♦• 14 00 406 00 48 " •• 14 00 406 00 To sales of lot Wellesley St. 1600 00 Interest i8 months, 144 00 •Balance, .... 21384 64 By balance L^_. . -*:-'^ 30,929 64:^ 1 30.929 64 ¥ 21,384 64 That any man may see that the Bank cannot plead ignorance, we give you a copy of letter as sent them. - Copy of letter to Directors of Imperial Ba?ik: — ^^^^ Gentlemen. — In reference to the mortgage made by me to Taylor & Oates, in September, 1880, 1 was recommended by H. S. Rowland to make arrangements with Taylor & Oates to pay for, and sell grain for me at i cent per bushel. As collateral, I gave them a deed of 52 feet of land on Wellesley Street, price $1,800. My pro- fits that Fall up to New Year's were about $15,000. On INJ^w Year's Day, Mr. Taylor of Taylor & Oates, came to my house and wrote a cheque in favor of my wife for $9,200 which she sent to H. S. Rowland, President of Imperial Bank, to take up North of Scot- land mortgage. H. S. Rowland did not do so, as the Company would not accept the money, so the money was left with Taylor & Oates till the Company would be ready to take it, and at that time I thought it safe for that purpose. Then I gave Taylor & Oates orders to pay W. D. Matthews & Co. $4,250 out of balance on hand. This left in the hands of Taylor & Oates, as collateral, a balance of $1,500, besides the lot above mentioned on Wellesley Street. Seeing the success I had made in the Fallof 1880, they proposed that J. H. McClellan and myself should go into partnership with them the next Fall of 1881. Taylor & Oates to put up $10,000, J. R. McClellan a note for $5,000, and R. Bradford, $5000, and they were to draw out terms of agreement ; J. H. McClellan and myself were to work the business outside. I then, to furnish my share of capital, made a mortgage of $4,250, and went to work with a will until the business was worked up to one million bushels, at which time they told one of the most crushing, willful and wicked lies, and afterwards put this lie on record in Court that R. Bradford had nothing what- ever to do with the business, and they did not, nor never had, an account with him, but that my wife had an account. This, some of your Directors know to be false, but they, Taylor & Oates, took this plan to capture my money. They had four law firms and the Imperial Bank to back them in this villainy, and so far they have succeeded. Then their next —4— step was to give the collaterals that I had placed with them to the Bank. The Bank then entered my property and collected the rents. They ordered Mr. Bain, the Bank Solicitor, to sell the property under the mortgage, and he did so, although I asked some of your Directors not to interfere but hold the mortgage for me, but they seemed determined to assist Taylor & Oates to ruin me, and they have done so, as I have neither a house for my family to live in, a chair to sit on, nor a bed to lay on, neither money nor food, but as I get from others, as some of your Directors know, and worse than all, I have been for over five months laid up with a broken thigh ; for ten weeks in bed, and the balance of time hobbling around as best I could on crutches, (and now after two years and three months I am still a cripple), and am unable to do anything, but like Job, exercise patience, ' consider then these things' Most of your Directors have known me for thirty years. What has been my character .'' Was I known to you, or any of you, as a cheat ? as a liar ? a defrauder of banks, or private citizens ? or that ' I ever dealt unjustly ? Then, why do you assist and make it easy for Taylor & Oates to defraud me ? Is it because they are sharpers and have succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes } Deception is right in their line, for did they not take from Chisholm & Sproule 23,000 bushels of barley and sell the same at 6 cents per bushel more than they returned them ? or, did they not take John Steele's barley, (of Bolton), on commission, and sell early in the Fall for 98 cents per bushel unknown to him, and persuaded him to hold thQ barley already sold iov di rise, and five months after, they returnedgjiim %6 cents per bushel and charged him hiterest, Corn- mission, Insurance and Storage f Again, did they not buy J. W. Cannon's barley in Oswego, for $1.28 and return him account of sales at 65 cents? Then, after the death of J. W. Cannon, sued his estate for $10,500, when I know that when Cannon was living Taylor would have given him $2,000 to settle the account. The Cotiri gave Cannon's brother an order to go to Oswego, and find out at what price the barley was sold, and who bought it. Taylor went to Oswego, and prevented Irwin & Sloan from giving any in- formation. Our Court having no jurisdiction in the United States they were, of course, baffled by Taylor. Taylor refused in every case to produce account of sales, purchases and receipts for money paid out or who bought the goods. Judge Rose gave judgment against Cannon for $10,500, when previous to this, Judge Gait threw it out of Court as a fraud, but as Cannon is dead, he has not yet re- turned to pay it. * Again. Two farmers, named Campbell and Mulholland, in Vaughan, gave Taylor $1,000 margin to buy ro,ooo bushels of wheat. The wheat they never bought, but all the same charged interest, insurance, commission, storage, making a loss of about 7 cents per bushel. Another farmer had a car of wheat in their hands which sold for $1.11; they returned him 1.05. They charged against me $2,900 insurance, when they paid less than $300. They charged me $1,700 for stationery and rent of their office, — 6— besides commission. Was it ever known for commission men to mal 4,50000 In cash paid by Dicky for me, ... .. ..^^ -, .^^ 70000 The cost of 8 hours' trial in High Court, .. ... 65000 Paid McCarthy to take out injunction to stop Imperial Bank from selling the property, .. ... ,..., ... 20000 By wrong judgment given to Taylor & Oates . . -.^^.c^ ..^ , , ^ 10,101 00 By surplus of rents for 29 months over and above taxes, insurance, etc., 4,726 36 Interest on balance due from Dec. ist, 1883 to March 1886, '.. • • 2,314 30 Mortgage, Paid W. D. M. Total Cr. Balance • • . . . 83 ,191 66 $16,000 00 4,250 00 20, ,250 00 1 • 62, .942 66 Note. — Taylor, of Taylor & Oates, told John Sproule in 1881 "that I had $15,000 to my credit, as a result of work in fail of 1880." In the trial of Sproule & Chisholm vs. Taylor & Oates ordered by the Corn Exchange, Taylor & Oates swore that R. Bradford had an account with them and that they bought the bar- ley for him. The arbitrators were Beard, Galbraith and Chapman. The evidence given before the Master by J. H. McLellan, who sold the barley in the States and with the costs, a5. shown by Taylor & Oates' statement, proves there was no loss in the transactions of 1880. NEW FACTS IN THE CASE. - In order to again get a hearing it is necessary to have evidence not previously introduced in Court 1st. Three important witnesses did not give evidence in my case viz.: J. H. McLellan, John Sproule, J. C. Hamilton, (of the firm of Beaty, Hamilton & Cassels.) ^ 2nd. Mrs. Bradford never got credit in Court for $4,250.00 of a mortgage, and $1,800.00, price of lots deeded to Taylor & Oates, and also surplus rents collected $4,726.36 and proceeds of sale of property surplus $12,750.00. i^a ^ *r irmm^^Mo^^ 3rd. The bank sold the property for the mortgage they held. They sold the property to one Fred. Oates, brother of Taylor & Oates. The bank then took a new mortgage from him $17,000.00 or more than the bank's claim on the mortgage, $12,750.00. 4th. Since the bank entered the property they or some one has had about $4,726.36 more than would pay interest on all the debt against it, including interest on judgment suppose it to be correct. 5th. Mr. Hamilton writes that the prope* tywas not legally sold, (see letter from Hamilton). 6th. Mr. Bain, the Bank's solicitor, togi ' ler with Oates, drove to Mr. Hamilton's house after night and dictated the letter and addressed the same in care of Taylor & Oates, for R. Bradford. Taylor & Oates received it next day and kept it. I knew nothing about it until John Wilson found it among the papers in the Court. He says it was one of the strongest things they had to deceive the Court, and a conspiracy to defraud. Mr. Hamilton told Wilson how he came to write the letter as above staged. 7th. The man Lauder who was appointed to audit the account was under the control of Taylor & Oates. They treated him and he was under the influence of liquor, and then and afterwards said that he R. H. Lauder could have put $2,000.00 to our credit if R. Bradford had paid him ; R.Bradford had not the money at the time and he quit the job to the benefit of Taylor & Oates. 8th. If our account had been properly audited as Government, City Bank,or any company's accounts are done with proper vouchers, we would have $8,000.00 to our credit instead of having a judg- ement against us of $10,101.00. 9th. J. H. McClellan, our principal witness, was kept away by Taylor & Oates until the trial was over, but his statement before the master is important in a new audit. -8— These new facts, together with the foregoing schemes, frauds, plots, and inductions \yhich are so glaring and plain that he who runs may read, will open up for me a re-hearing of the case in which I may hope for justice. But what with my defence of an unjust persecution, and my physical inability on account of my broken leg, I am poor indeed. But I trust I do not live in a country where men may with impunity' rob a cripple because he is defenceless, and has not the means to chase and capture the thieves. If such things as these can go unchallenged, are you safe my readers ? May not some rogue in whom you put trust be the viper that will sting you, and with false oaths wrest from you all an industrious family have for a life-time been saving that they may not want when the evening of life comes on ? Now, fellow citizens throughout the land, I appeal to you. I have put my case squarely before you, and you will see I have been ground down from plenty to poverty. Will you let these despoilers go un whipped of justice, or will you lend me a helping hand to wrest my property from the hands of these sharpers, who at present live without fear of prosecution because they well know that I am too poor to prosecute them. It would, probably, take $i,ooo to carry the case through; help me to this money, and I will, as sure as there is justice to be had in the Courts of Canada; return to every man, who now assists me, his loan with interest. I appeal to you in no begging spirit, but I ask every man or woman who has a sympathy for the oppressed and wronged to help me in this that I may not go down in poverty to the grave, and let rob- bers enjoy the results of my best years of honest endeavour. Respectfully submitted, R. BRADFORD, 4^g Parliament Sf., Toronto. P.S. — Taylor & Oates swore in the case of Sproule & Chisholm before the arbitrators of the Corn Exchange, that R. Bradford had an account with them and that they bought Sproule & Chisholm's barley for him. Before the High Court of Justice they swore that they had no account with R. Bradford.