^, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 l^|M |25 ui Ui& 12.2 ^ |4£ 12.0 U ■lUu ^1^ // / e ^"^^^ .^I^ Hiotographic Sciences Corporation ^"^ \ \ 23 WIST MAIN STRHT WIUTm.N.Y. I4SM ( 71* ) 173^903 ^ It^ if' vV CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microraproduotiona / Institut Canadian da nrticroraproductions historiquaa Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibiiographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Q D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur nn Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurte et/ou peiiicuite □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (I.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ RellA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration n^; appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauratlon apparaissent dans le te^e, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas Att f llmAes. Additional comments:/ Commen^aires supplAmentaires: L'Instltut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a Sti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D D D a D Pages damaged/ Pagtfs endommagtes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurtes et/ou pellicultos Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcolortes, tachettes ou piquAes. Pages detached/ Pages dAtachtes Showthrough/ Transparence r~n Quality of print varies/ Quality InAgaie de I'lmpression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matiriei suppMmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refllmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partlellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At A filmtes A nouveau de fafon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indlqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X MX X 12X 16X aox 24X 32X ■aire 8 details ques du It modifier ligor una 6 fiimage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Nova Scotia Public Archives The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grfice d la g6n4rosit6 de: Nova Scotia Public Archives Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fllmage. 1/ utoa Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Ail other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED "),. or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commen^ant par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la ddrnidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ►signifie "A SUIVRE ". le symbole V signlfie "FIN ". lir* Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed ct different reduction ratios. Those too lar*je to be entirely included in one exposure are fiirr-'Tid beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds A des taux de r6duction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. by errata led to ent line pelure, fapon k 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 32X \l tj-^^^^.^t f~--iiL . / 7< MINUTES or 8t. Matthew's Kirk Session X tn re X W. MONTGOMERY. X 2>-;V , .... t-^ .*■ ^ ■-.■:. ^f^; ■>'--^.:- Y^U'''" :'■'■■ •f/' '■i^' w\i .^^-^ ^.-iv. hki' t \ ; ":; ' I ^* AVjK! ^' i" J, ^ .> ' ' ' »ii SW*W? f1 /;> •J',-^ ?>. St. *^!Aif4.rt: 'i;iSMF'^ (Printer ;s5i-'~i;w-^ fi M* ':v. MINUTES V/F it ,50 OP St. Matthew's Kirk Session %' '^''V*^ j'l-i * '^-'^ in re W. MONTGOMERY. ( Printed for the Information of Members of Presbytery,) , " vi-- ,^' if 1 :v • , m .V !■ • > I- > ' -1. , '• f ? t Y . '9^ ?^ ^ \| HALIFAX : NOVA SCOTIA PRINTING COMPANY. CORNER SACKVILLE AND GRANVILLE STREETS, 1873. Public -rj.;.,- 0: f,'Q;a scotia HALIFAX, N. S, i^ / ^O, /m^4 mil. H^ Ltrt^./^ /^A^^^ rA k ^"^^^^ ^**" ■■ii» ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ' Ct^ 4 7^-/ / *.^^ -V /-/^ \ W j^-^ J^.K. A.Zff Sh/j... J. 'Li' ^. L Ik^ ^-^ <^s (lU^ / d. //, 11 iM ^v>^. / ^ / .< MlNtJTJES ST. MATTHEWS KIRK SESSION in re W. MONTGOMERY. \ (Printed for the Information of Members of Presbytery,) SfessiON Room, 5tk ftbruary^ 1872. Which time and place the Session met, and was constituted ii^ith prayen Present: Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator; Messrs. Montgomery, Hesson, Neal* Bremner, Lindsay, John McLean, G. Maclean and Dr. Gordon, Elders. Inter alia. Mr. Montgomery brought to the notice of the Sessson that certain state" mcntfl had been made with regard to his business transactions, affecting hif standing as ?. member of Session, and expressed a desire that the same should -be investigated. The Session thereupon appointed Messrs. Bremner> Neal and G. Maclean, as a Committee for this purpose. GitOROE Maolkan, Clerk>. 8e8SIO>' Room, 1st July, 1872. Which day the Session met, and was constituted with prayer. Present: Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator ; Dr. /.very. Dr. Gordon, J. J. Bremner, W. A» He8son, M. M. L'udsay, W. Montgomery^ W. U. Neal, J. McLean, G. Mac- lean, Elders. Inter alia. Mr. Bremner, as Chairman of the Committee in the matter of W. Mont^ gomery, handed in a report, which, aflci* being read, was remitted for furih^^ consideration ; and Mr. Menzies was added to the Committee^ G» Maclean, Citrk, SESSION Room, 2nd December, IS/?. Wlilcli (lay the Session met, and was constituted with prayer. Present : Kev. G. M. Grant, Moderator ; Dr. Avery, V/. A. Ilesson, W. H. Neal, M. M Lindsay, J. J. Brcinncr, W. C. Menzics, John McLean and G. Maclean^ £lder8. Inter alia. Mr. Bren>ncrf as Convener of 'he Committee in ihe matter of W. Mont- gomery, presented a statement vohintarily made by T. G. Budd, and signed by him, containing charges reflecting on the character of W. Montgomery^ Mr. Bremner also tabled the icfiort of the old Committee on this matter, whic'i reports shows that there are matters connected with the lettlement of Mr. Montgomery's business, which recjuirc explanation. After dtre consideration, the Session Resolved, That a Committee of two be appointed to meet with Mr. Mont- f ornery, inform him that the Committee on his case hold to their original teport ; show him also the paper signed by Mr. Budd, and ask him if he wishes the Session to investigate the matter, or whether he wishes to withdraw. Dr. Avery and Mr. Ilesson were appointed a Committee to convey the above resolution to Mr. Montgomery. G. Maclean, Clerk. Session Koont, 15/A Dec, 1872. Which day the Session met, and was constituted with prayer. Present : Rev. G. M. Grant, Motlerator ; Dr. Avery, Dr. Gordon, \V. F. Knight, W. A. Hesson, J. J. Bremner, W. C Menzies, W. H. Neal, M. M. Lindsay, J. McLean, and George Maclean^ Elders. Dr. Avery and Mr. Ilesson, the Committee appointed to convey to Mr* Montgomery the resolution passed at last meeting. Reported that they had carried out the instructions given them. The Moderator submitted a letter from Mr. Montgomery, in which the latter declines, for reasons stated therein, to allow the matter to come before Session, and resigning his position as mem- ber of Session. After long deliberation on the subject, the following resolution was moved by Dr. Avery, and seconded by Mr. Neal : — Whereas, On the 6th February last, Mr. Montgomery brought to the knowledge of the Setusion ''that certain statements nad beeu made with regard to his business transactions, affecting his standing as a member of Session, and expressed a desire that the same should be investigated," and a Committee was therefore appointed for that purpose ; And Whereas, The said Committee reported, as per minutes of 1st July and 2nd Dec, " that there were matters connected with the settlement of the business of W. Montgomery requiring explanation ;" And Whereas, Mr. Montgomery, for family and other reasons, declined to go Into the question of his business connection with Mr Budd, although wlth< i:>ut this. It was impossible to disprove all the charges ; And Whereas, On the 2nd Dec, there was submitted to the Session a paper signed by Mr. Budd, containing charges, several of which bad been orally made in his behalf by .others ; And Whereas^ TIr Session tlien intimated to Mr. Montgomery that, if lie were to remain a member of Session, tiiesc must be taken up and satisfac- torily explained, and Mr. Montgomery responded, protesting that ho had done Mr. Budd no wrong, but atlhering to his former resolution, aiul for the same reason not to bring the whole question of his connection with Mr. Budtl before Session, and resigning his membership; Therefore Resolved, That, as it is only just to give Mr. Montgomery credit for sincerity in the reasons stated for his declinature, the matter be dropt at this point, as taken out of the sphere of the Session, that Mr. Montgomery's resignation be accepted, the Conmiittee on the case discharged, and Mr. Budd's communication returned to him, with information that Mr. Alont- gomery is no longer a member of this Session. Moved in amendment by Dr. Gordon, and seconded by J. McLean : Resolved, That the Report of the Committee, handed in on 2nd Dec, be not adopted, and the Committee be thanked and di^^charged. Moved in amendment by Mr. Lindsay, and seconded by Mr. Menzies: Resolved, That a Committee of two be apjxjinted to call on Mr. Mont- gomery to state that the Session is of opinion that he should appear to have his case investigated, otherwise the Session would be obliged to accept his rcsignatioii. The amendment having been put and lost, the original resolution was carried by a majority of six. Dr. Gordon, Mr. Menzies and Mr. Lindsay, gave notice that they would hand in reasons for dissent from the decision of Session. Tlie Moderator and Dr. Avery were appointed a Committee to convey the resolution of Session to Mr. Montgomery. Closed with prayer. G. Maclean, CUrk. Session Room, 22nd, Dec, 1872. Which day the Session met, and was constituted with prayer. Present : Rev. G. M. Grant, Mon of the fits were nswer to by him claim, a 2r, 1870, r, which urity to circuin t every- v'i, he ' means , having refused ons for ?73. "(miner, 'cLean, :;asc ot led out the arrangements agreed upon. The members of Session were several days previously furnished with a copy of the charges made against Mr. Mont- gomery. A copy also was sent to Mr. Montgomery, who signified his readi- ness to meet the Session at the time appointed. A copy was also sent to Mr. Budd, who offered himself as a witness against Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Budd bein resent, the Moderator stated the order of procedure, and announced that tiie case would now proceed. Mr. Budd addressed the Session, and declared his readiness to reconcile the differences between Mr. Montgomery and himself Mr. Montgomery declined, stating that the matter had gone so tar, It was his desire that the investigation should take place. The Moderator tlien read the first charge in the libel: — Copy of a statement tabled by Mr. Budil, and read, admitted by Mr. Montgomery as a correct copy of original statement. (Appendix A.) Moderator to Mr. Budd. — Q. What have you to say in reference to the charge here made ? Ans. I do not know whether the statement is correct or not. Q. "Were you a partner in the firm of W. Montgomery & Co. ? Ans. I was. Articles of co-partnership bearing date 8th August, 1866, tabled and read, admitted by Mr. Montgomery. (Appendix B.) Moderator to Mr. Budd.-—Q. When did this business commence? Ans. Immediately. Q. Are you aware whether any profits were made previous to 1st April, 1867, and if so, how much ? Ans. 1 do not know. Q. Was there any other capital put into the business than the $15,000 put in by yourself? Ans. None. Q. Had you any other means at that time ? Ans. Had other consider- able means at that time, but invested. Q. Were you aware at that time that the statement just read had been given into the Union Bank? Ans. Yes. Q. Did you take any means to verify the statement ? Ans. No. Q. By which partner was that statement handed into the Union Bank ? Ans. I do not remember. Q. Were you aware of the purpose for which it was given ? Ans. To enable the firm to get larger discounts, some of their paper having been re- fused. Examined hy Mr. Menzies. — Q. Can you give any idea of what you were worth at the time of entering the co-partnership? Ans. When I cnine here, a year before I was worth about $70,000, or more. Was worth souiething less when I entered the co-partnership. Q. Was tliis sum all in money, or how invested ? Ans. I had a steamer in Havana, worth $36,000; also a barque, afterwards lost, cost $21,000 ; Union Banw Stock, $5,000, and $20,000 in the Bank of England. lO By Mr. Neal. — Q. Was the $15,000 you put into the business taken out of the fjeneral sum ? Aus. I cannot say positively. Cross-examined bij Mr. Ms taken out le object of getting the ontgonu'ry ontgoiiieiy ake tliat as >en(ltnt of a larger nt already statement f- I can't tenient to L. Dodge 'Iiieh was e. tlic same mil about k ? Ana. ■eely. ipal data St April, rter com- inmence- Pt April, August August 7, 18CD. ad been in the II Q. Would the inventory as it stood on the 1st April, be pretty nearly the same as on August 17, 186P? Ans. Yes. Q. Can Mr. Montgomery give any idea of the profits from 1st April to the 1 7Lh of August. Ans. Probably in the same proportion as previous year, — about $3,000, but this was not considered in the statement. Q. The balance of assets is $43,062 28. How did this arise ? Ans. 1. Profits $26,089 75 2. Mr Budd's Capital 15,000 00 3. To Co. Stock Account 8,850 65 To explain this third item, Mr. Br. mner asks respecting the item of *' Machinery Fi.xtures," $35,272. Of what items does this consist? Ans. 1. Original purchase money of Macliinery $13,000 00 2. Expen< :: !' 14 Q. Did you not ask tlie book-keeper to make tlie entries in the ledfrer correspond with that statement, and were not nearly all tiic entries in the led^r made from statem".nts furnished by yourself? Ans. No, to the first point, and to the second, I am not aware. Q. If the $3,200 is not the same item, is there any other item in your account of $;5,200 ? Ans. I kept no account with Mr. Montgomery. I kept merely a memo, of what money he owed me. Q. Is tliat account in your hand correct? Ans. I presume it is. Q. If tliat account is correct, did it include all the credits W. Mont-* goraery & Co. were bound to give you at the time ? Ans. Ko. It had no reference to the entire business of VV. Montgomery & Co. Q. Was tliat sttitemcnt a full account of your individual transactions with the firm ? Ans. No. It Wius ji specific .-iccount. Q. Will you look at the ledger and say whether the item shown in t.hc ledger is tiie same as the one now in question? Am. (Mr. Budd looking at the ledger), i presume it is. Q. Had the books been balanced before that entry was made ? Ans. I do not know. Mr. Montgomer; now makes his statement in regard to the point under consideration, as follows : — That nearly all the entries in Mr. Budd's account in the books of Wm. Montgomery & Co., were made from statements fur;:>shed by Mr. Budd in his own hand writing, which statements I now hold in my hand, and table — - endorsed T. G. Budd's statement of Csish account, 1st July, 18G7. (Appen- dix E.) Amongst the items is this one of $3,200, put down in the same ac- count with '• cash loaned." This amount was put down for the purpose of making a larger balance to his credit, and is included in the note of $7,746, ivhich he took from us bearing interest. The entry of $3,200 to his credit was made by the book-keeper before I was aware of it, and T objected to its remaining in that form, as the books had not been balanced, and we could not ascertain what the profits were. That entry was reversed long before the statement to the creditors was made, viz., in Dec, 1867. Mr. Bremner to Mr. Montgemery. — Q. Why was there no profit credited to Mr. Budd in the account given to the creditors ? Ans. T!ie object of the account was to show what Mr. Budd put into the concern, and what he had taken out. Ttie account states so on its fiice. Q. Did you not cause yourself to be credited with an amount of $14,- 291.66, which reduced the amount due by you to the business to the amount shown in the books at the time they were examined by the creditors? Ans. There is just one entry of profit and loss in the ledger to each of the partners, made on 1st April, l8Gi), and that was $13,344.87, or one-half of the profit! given in the statement to the Union Bank. Q. Mr. Bromncr repeats the question, and asks for a specific answer* Mr. Montgomery replies: — Th' ro is no such entry in the books. tlie ledfrer in tlie ledpier first point, cm in your »!ry. I kept it is. W. Mont- It had no transactions own in *.lic iild looking ? Ans. I wint under )ks of Wm. Budd in his ind tubh:— ^ (Appen- ;hc same aC' purpose of e of $7, 746, ) his credit ected to its I we could lon;r before »fit credited bject of the diat lie had It of 814,. ihe amount >r8? An.1. e partners, the profits ic answer* 1 15 Mr. Afenzies to Mr. Montgomery.— Q. Did Montgomery & Co. give a note to Mr. 3udd including the 83,200, although disputing the propriety of the entry be':! 19 Co., lyiiij; on ) l>e objeetetl ot, but 1 do ist'd. oderator. VN, Clerk. Uh, 1873. Ir. Biidil be nintod. V. L. Dodge debit in your ; been debited our debit on ccount trans- s the one com I to W. Mont- requested Mr ch balances to inedof? Ans. hen that entry p your failure ? Ige & Co. gave 3unt shows an ther entries in appefc.r in the \, 1863, $1,104 a note rather Ans. I don't Co. received a ber. Mr. liremncr to Mr. Mottlgnmerif. — Q. Had you Mr. Budd's |Hrii>isslon to transfer the amount comphiined of to his debit ? Ans. No special per- mission was given to transfer tliat amount; it was transferred in aeeonlance with usual custom. Q. ^'' the firm of W. L. I)o Mr. Harvey, the official Assignee, with Mr. Harvey's affidavit. (Appen- dix G.) Mr. Montgomery repeated his protest against the Court receiving the affidavit of Mr. Harvey as to the object for which the statement was hand- •d in. Mr. Bremner tabled a letter from Mr. Montgomery, addressed to Mr. Harvey, Official Assignee, dated 6th January, 1870, which letter was read and put on fyle. (Appendix H.) Mr. Bremner continued, — Q. Mr. Montgomery states, in his letter, that Mr. Budd was indebted to the firm of W. Montgomery & Co., $1,624 51. (To Mr. Montgomery.) — How does that balance aiise ? Aus. It is impossible now to state how that balance arose. The statement was correct at the time to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Bremner, handing Mr. Montgomery the account proceeded. Q. It is stated there that Mr. Budd is indebted to the firm of W. Mont- gomery & Co., S4,576 91, but there is a charge on July 20, of S3,603 25 which amount or thereabout was to be credited back to Mr. Budd as included in the amount of 814,225 80, charged 1st Nov. Did you not deduct that amount before you made your claim 81,624 51, in your letter to Mr. Harvey? Ans. Yes. Q. Did you not admit that on 1st April, 1869, there was put to Mr. Budd's credit as, profit, $18,344 87 ? Ans. Yes. Q. Does. Mr. Montgomery also admit that there were profits subsequent to 1st April, 1869, of $3,418.33 ? Ans. Yes. Q. Was not Mr. Budd entitled to one-hulf that amount ? Ans. Yes. Q. Was not Mr. Budd entitled to credit for those profits in all amounting to 816054.33? Ans. Yes. Q. Was it right to represent in your letter to Mr. Harvey, Mr. Budd, as a debtor when the profits were included he would have a large sum due him ? Ans. It was perfectly right, for Mr. Harvey understood, as I sup- posed, that no profits were considered in the account any more than in the pre- Tious general statement. Q. Is Mr. Montgomery aware that this letter was produced at a meeting of W. L. Dodge & Co., creditors ? A7is. Certainly — it was intended for that purpose. Q. Can the language in your letter " waiving a claim against Budd" be ♦ On the Minutes being read over at the close of this sitting (5th Feb.) with refer- ence to the answer given to the above question, Mr. Montgomery requested to be allow- ed to add— That the profits of S3,418.33 were up to April 1st., 1870, but the account of Profit and Loss shows two entries to debt subsequently, viz. : 93,056.54, and Sl,366-27. So within the tine covered by the question there was no profit, but actual loss. I out?! cannl J parti le firm (W. liber, 1870? |u(I(l handed (Appen- jcciving the It was hand- 3ed to Mr. [cr was read indebted to ntgomery.) — tate how that 5 best of my ded. of W. Mont- , of S3,603 25 dd as included ; deduct that ) Mr. Harvey? IS put to Mr. its subsequent Ans. Yes. all amounting Mr. Budd, as large sum due tood, as I sup- han in the pre- 1 at a meeting tended for that linst Budd" be Feb.) with refer- sted to be allow- it the account of and Sl,366.27. aal loss. 4 f 1 21 reconciled with the answer which you have row given to the qiicstion pre- ceding the last two? Ans. It is perfectly consistent in my mind. Q. As Mr. Budd was really a creditor by the accounts to the amount of over 813,000 and the amount claimed ag.iinst Mr. Budd in the letter to Mr. Harvey is Sl,624.51, and against Dodge & Co., S3,180.72. How was it possi- ble for Mr. Montgomery to waive a right to a claim ag.iin8t an estate to which the firm were a debtor instead of a creditor? Ans. I decline to an- swer on the ground that I expect to go into this matter again in a regular manner. Mr. Bremner here tabled Mr. Montgomery's attested account against "\V. L. Dodge & Co. Appendix 1., and continued. Q. Ts the amount charged 12th Nov. 1870 Sl,025.T5 the same ai that charged on the same date to Mr. Budd ? Ans. It is. Q. Is the amount charged 1st Dee. 1870, the same as that charged to Mr. Budd's account on same date ? Ans. It is. (Signed) G. M. Grant, Moderator. George Maclean, Clerk. February 6th, 1873. Sederunt : Same as last, except Mr. Knight. The Moderator, referrin<' to the general count — 2nd Division — slated that the further consideration of Mr. Budd's account would be deferred by consent of the court. ^Ii\ Menzies moved that parties withdraw for a few moments, in order that the court may consider the remaining charges, with a view to facilitate the duty of the court. — Approved. Parties were requested to retire for a few moments, which they did accordingly. Mr. Menzies moved that, with respect to counts HI. and IV., the court consider it necessary to take up only section No. 6. — Carried. The parties havinj; again appeared, the Moderator stated the above deci- sion, and explained the same. The court then took up Secion 6, Count No. 3. Mr. Menzies to Mr. Budd. — Q. Did the Articles of Co-partnership pro- vide that interest should be allowed or charged to either party, according as their several accounts might run ? Ans. Mr. Budd read from articles show- ing that interest was to be charged. Q. Were you aware that that part of the co-partnership was not carried out? Ans. Yes. Q. Was it with your consent ? A ns. No. Q. When did you become aware that it was not carried out ? Ans. I cannot tell when. Q. Did you remonstrate or object to the violation of the Article of Co- partnership on this point ? Ans. No. 22 Q. Was it possible for this provision of tTie Article of Co-partnership to be carried out without an entry of profit and loss to the several parties ? Am. No. Q. Were you aware that Mr. Montgomery was drawing apparently in excess of his proportion of profits since April, 1869 ? Ans. I was not aware. Q. Did you not consider it your duty as a partner to see tliat the accounts were faithfully kept witli each partner ? Ans. Yes. Q, Did you take any means to ascertain whether this article of the co- partnership was carried out ? Ana. No. Bji Mr. Neal. — Q. Does Mr. Budd remember any particular instance when he asked Mr. Montgomery to balance the books and was put off? Ans. I do no"- Bii the Moderator. — Q. But are you sure that you were put off? Ans.. Yes, once or twice. Cross-examined b>/ Mr. Montgomery. — Q. Is Mr. Budd not aware that, 18 months after the business commenced, viz., on March 31st, 1868, the books were balanced, a complete inventory taken, and that the balance showed, as a result of the operation, profits amounting to $17,527.27, and that the same process was gone through every year ? Ans. I don't remember. Q. Is Mr. Budd aware that, on March 31st, 186D, the balance showed a profit of 9,162.48 ? Ans. 1 don't remember. Q. Is Mr. Budd aware that, at the same time, viz., April 1st, 1869, that his private account was credited with $13,344.87 — being one-half of the p:o- fits ascertained at that date ? Ans. No; I don't remember. Q. Will Mr. Budd look at the Ledger and see if these entries do not appear? Ans. (Mr. Budd looking at the ledger.) Isee these entries now. Mr. Monzies here handed an account to Mr. Montgomery, and asked Mr. M. if lie recognized the writinji. Ans. I do not. Q. Is it not that of Mr. DeWolf, fonnerly book-keeper with you ? Ans. 1 would not recognize it as his writing. Q Looking at your private account in your books — by whom was the account kept ? Ans. By Mr. DeWolf up to May 1st, 1870, and subsequent- ly by Mr. Cook. Q. The account shows a balance of $9,907.20, March aist, 1»69, drawn by Mr. Montgomery. Ans. Yes. Q. The account also shows that there was drawn during that year, about $4,000. Ans. Yes. Q. Looking at the next 13 months, that is from March, 186 J, to April 1870, state what your drawings wem. Ans. $6,800. Q. State what was drawn from 30th April, 1870, to the clweofthe partnership, Aug. .'Mst, 1870? Ans. $851.27. Q. Will you state now your drawings during the first 20 months of the business? Ans. Jt5,943.77. Q. State now the various sums credited from time to time to your privat 23 artnersIiFp to iral parties ? ipparently in as not aware. t the accounts cle of the co- ular instance It off? Ans. It off? A ns. ; aware that, i68, the books ;e showed, as liat the same T. nee showed a St, 1869, that alf of the p:o- ntries do not B entries now. nd asked Mr. I you? Ans. horn was the J subsequent- 186J>, drawn t year, about 86 J, to April close of the lonths of the your privat * account from profit and loss ? Ana. Tliere is only one credited during the co-partnership, viz.. 1st April, 1869— $13,344.88. Q. Thon that account shows that you occasionally overdrew more than the S3, 500 allowo'l by the co-partnership? Atis. Yes. Q. Was Mr. Biidd, in your opinion, ever aware of these overdrafts? Ans. Most certainly he was. He had free access to the books, and examin- ed them often. Q. Did he give you a written consent to make these overdrafts? Ans. He did not. Q. No charge of interest is made by you on these overdrafts. Ans. No. Q. Were you aware of the existence of these overdrafts at the time? Ans. 1 was not awire of any overdrafts till January, 1870. Q. When you became aware of these overdrafts, did you instruct the book-keeper to charge interest ? Ansi. Tliere was no balance of books after 1 was aware of the ovenlraft, until after the failure of Dodge & Co. Q. Were you not aware on March, 18G9 — when the books were balanced — thrit there was an overdraft? Ans. The overdraft then was only S573.20. Mr Manlfinmerji confiniwd. — [ wish to state here, that there was no adjust- ment of co-partnership interest with either of us during the continuance of the co-partnershii». Mr. Menzies here asked permission to include Count No. 5, with this examination, as it bore on the same subject. — Agreed to. Mr. Menzias continued. — Q. In that count, you arc charged with drawing 39,501.87- between 1st April, 18fi9, and 31st Aug., 1870? (Mr. IMont- ^oincry.) 1 decline to answup until I know on whose authority that charge is made. The court considered the question, and decided that there was no objec- tion to giving Mr. Montgomery the information required. Mr. Menzies — The charge is deduced from a document placed in the Committee's hands by Mr. Harvey, which document was now tabled, (Ap- pendix E.). Tlie ((ucstion was again put as before. Is that amount correct? Ans. It is not. Q. What was the amount drawn during that time? Ans. $6,834.64. Q. A sum of $13,344.88 was creilited to you from profit and loss, on 31 jt IMarch, 1869, — was th:it credit not in excess of what the Articles of Co-part- nership allowed? (Question withdr wn.) Mr. Bremner to Mr. Montgomery. — Q. There is a didereiioe between the amount given by ^Ir. Montgomery as drawn, and the amount actually appear- ing in the boolvs during the 17 months referred to, said difference being principally causeil by bills payable, $1,604.3 4, given on Mr. Montgomery's account by the firm, but not paid in that j)erio(l. W^as not the firm respon- sible for these notes. Ans. These note;-, were not given within the period stated, allhough tliey appear on the books as a matter of record. They were renewals. 'f? 24 Q. Do they appear ofttMior than once in the account? An/t. The first note was for nine months. Wlien that ni itured, there was a small payment made, and the balance was renewed for 18 months. The preceding question was again put. (Mr. Montgomery.) They do not appear more than once in that period. Q. Did these notes appear previous to 1st April, 18G0? Ans. They do not. Q. "Was not the firm responsible for these notes? Ans. It Avas, l)ut with Mr. Budd's knowledge and consent. Tliev were drawn in such a wav that, when paid at maturity, they wnuhl not overdraw my account. Q. Still, that does not aflect the responsibility of the firm? .'l/(.s\ Cer- tainly not. Q. Does there not appear also in ^Ir. Budd's account to his debit, a large sum represented also by notes impaid. Aiis. Yes. Mr. Montgomery here made the following statement : — That between the periods stated in count No. 5, Mr. Budd drew from the concern fist April, 1869, to 31st Aug., 1870), Sl5,309.89. Previous to 1st April, 1809, he had drawn S4,562, and subsequently, to August, 1870, and up to December, 1870, $3,855.35. Total, S23,727.G5. That this total was actually drawn, with the exception of S3, between June 25, 1868, and the end of December, 1870; and that the largest Item consists of four notes drawn payable with interest — payable in Americ ui gold — prern. 2^- per cent., the face ;..iioui>t of notes being $14,225.80. The notes were given by me at the urgent and repeated solicitation of Mr. Budd, who had pressed me to give notes for just twice that amount, which request I resisted until ^Ir. Chuzal, the representative of the Charleston Importing Company, came to Halifax with a claim against Mr. Budd, amounting to .about S30,000, and demanded a settlement. Knowing that this Avas distressing Mr. Budd for months previously, and as he stated to me that he would be perfectly contented, if that Charleston matter was only settled and off his mind, I consented to give him notes for an amount about equal to his original capital, provided they would be payable at such dates as would give the firm time to meet them in case of nejcd. After using my best services with !Mr. Cluizal, he agreed to take notes drawn payable in G, 12, 18 and 24 months, and an equal amount to be given him l)y the firm of Dodge & Co. I knew at the time that I Avas doing Avrong ; but Mr. I'udd agreed to give his interest in the concern as security, and also agreed to give ;.p the note for $7,74G and have it credited to him. I Avas actuated solely by con- siderations for Mr. Budd's interest, hoping itAvould fi-ee his mind from anxiety. So far from this being the result, from this date he grcAv Avor.-e as to his state of mind. I could not get him to take any interest Avhatever in the business. On the contrary, he busied himself misrepresenting me to our largest creditors; and, after a Avhile, he refused to sign rencAval notes on thci very day that I relied upon his doing so. He remained at home. Sometimes I could not see him for Aveeks ; and, during the month of August, 1870, I discovered that he was unfit for any kind of business, and I here distinctly avow that his conduct 25 Tlio first all payment .) Tlioy do . I »s. Thev was, 1)ut with ii way that, ? .'1//.S-. Ccr. (Ifbit, a larjxe ; botwocn the 1 fist April, 18G9,he had !(>inbor, 1870, iwn, with the mber, 1870; ith interest — Kii't of notes and repeated list twice that ntalive of the I against Mr. it. Knowing .s he stated to tter was only [iinount about such dates as using my best e in G, 12, 18 inn of Dodge I'udd agreed o give ;.p the ololy by con- Ironi anxiety. ^s to his state the business, jest creditors; y day that I could not see I'cred that ho it his conduct nearly put a stop to our business — the bank having thrown out some paper ; and parties who had formerly freely given us their paper when required, stated distinctly to me that no a«e.xt day, I wrote him as follows — (Mr. ^I. licre read the letter). No reply to this letter. Shortly after this, I discovered that Mr. Budd was at home very sick. T sent my wife over to sec what the matter was. She informed me. I then went over in the evening, called on my sister. Afler conversing with her, slie asked me if I would not go up and see Thomas, and talk to him as a brother. I did so. I made no recrimination : but said if he had any. thing against me, he ought to state it to myself We parted as friends, he agreeing to come to me if anything rerpilred explanation in future. The Doctor said to me that ^Ir. l?udd should be sent away. We urged him to go, and I told him to give himself no an.\iety about the business, as I would at- tend to it during his absence. A few days after he left. Dodge & Co.'s book- keeper came to me, and said that he had a note of Si, 500 due that day, which was held by W. Chi.sliolm, and he refused to renew it. I went up to see Mr. Chisholm. He would not renew their jiaper, but said he would take mine. I willingly gave it without suspicion. In a day or two afterwards — about one o'clock — the book-keeper came acro.s& again to my ofiice, and stated that a note about the same amount, held by Wilkinson, Wood & Co., was due that day, and they absolutely relused to renew. I saw Mr. Wood. He refused, but said he would take my paper. I then asked him for the reason. I gave my paper for the note; and, I think, within a day or two after this, the book- keeper came across, and said they had no money to pay their hands. 1 advanced the i mey, he agreeing to pay me out of money he expected to get in. I then told him he must give me a list of their maturing liabilities. And I think that, afterwards, there was a note with Mr. Black's name, and he also 26 I |!|! refused to assist them. I then asked if lie had the list I spoke of. IIo said ho had n(bt time to make it out. I asked for the bill-book, and said I would make it out myself. And in half-an-hoiir. to my utter amazoinont, I discover- ed that the firm was bankrupt, unless Mr. Bndd could raise funds durin;^ his stay abroa/ to Mr. WijUle. — Q. I)o you recollect being present at the meeting of creditors jf W. L. Dodge & Co. and T. G. Budd, when a writ- ten [)roposition, made by nic to the Assignee, was submitted to the meeting? Anx. T was present. Mr. Montgomery here read the letter, being the one previously read by Mr. Bremner. Q. Do you recognize that as the letter read at the meeting of creditors? Ans. Yes. (.1 Was there any jirotest made by any of the creditoi-s to the settlement on that basis ? Ans. The only creditor who objected was !Mr. Black; but his protest lielng afterwards withdrawn, the acceptance became unanimous. Q. Before Mr. Black withdrcAv his objection, do you remember that I stated that 1 withdrew my proposition in consequence of Mr. Ji'ack's objec- tion ? /I /IS. 1 think that was the case, Mr. Black wished you to come under further liability, and you declined. Q. Do you recollect what I stated in connection with my declining this point ? Ans. You explained that it would be practically impossible. Mr. Jilcmner to Mr. Wi]hle. — Q. When Mr. Montgomery's proposition was laid before tlie meeting of creditors, can you inform the court whetiier the meeting believed that the representation made by Mr. INIontgomery was true ? Ans. I believe so : because a Committee of creditors examined Mr. Montgomery's books, and ri'ported that they appeared to show the result stated. Q. Do you know if any of the creditors were aware that certain sums, being identical, were both in the account of Dodge & Co. and T. G. Budd respectively? .l)).'?. I cannot say they were aware of such a circumstance. It is the first time I have heard of it. Q. Have you any i lea of the relative interest of the several parties com- posing the Committee, in the business of Dodge & Co. and Montgomery & Co. respectively ? Ans. I cannot say. The Committee were selected from the general creditors, without reference to that, or anything but their suitableness. 28 Q. AVfis any influence brought to bear upon Mr. Black to induce liim to with(lra'-v his opposition ? Ans. No. I never heard that there was. Mr. Dremner to Mr. Wt/l'le. — Q. Do not the words " waive all chvinis." &c., in Mr. ^lontgoniery's letter, imply that W. Montgomery & Co. were creditors, in fiict, of Mr. Budd, before they could claim any title to rank on his estate V Mr. Montgomery here objected to this question in its present form as cal- culated to mislead. The court ruled that the question was in order. Mr. Wylde then answers : — " The words might, in the abstract, imply as you have suggested, but I understood them as part of a general proposition, and I believe that the rest of the creditors understood them as 1 did. Q. When a man speaks ol " relinquishing a claim to rank on an estate," Does not that imply that he was an actual creditor? Ans. It would, if there was nothing else connected with it. Is there anything in that letter that would lead anyone to suppose that W. Montgomery & Co. were otherwise than actual creditors of T. (4. Budd ? Ans. The letter refers to previous negotiations that were all understood, and in the light of them, the creditors understood the letter. Q. Do you mean to say that while the letter states that I^Ir. Budd was a debtor, that the meeting understood that he was a creditor of W. Montgomery & Co.? Mr. Montgomery objects to the question as confounding Mr. Budd as a partner of W. Montgomery & Co., with Mr. Budd as related to the creditors of \V. Montgomery & Co. Mr. Bremner alters the form of his question thus : — Q. I want to know whether the meeting, when seeing it stated in this letter that Mr. Budd was a debtor of W. Montgomery & Co., were aware that, in his interest in the firm of W. Montgomery & Co., he was a creditor ? Ans. Tliey were. Q. Do you think it probable, if the meeting knew tiiat if there Avas a large difierence in the interests of T. G. Budd and W. Montgomery in that firm (the first being a creditor and the second a debtor in the respective in- terests in the firm), they Avould have been willing to give up all claim to the interest of Mr. Budd in that firm ? Ans. It would depend upon the account. Q. Are you aware that at that meeting there were several with a nmch larger interest in W. Montgomery & Co., a.3 creditor, than they had in Dodge & Co. ? Ans. lam not aware. By Mr. Menzies. — Q. Is Mr. Montgomery still indebted to your firm ? Ans. Yes, we are indorsers and hold security for the same. By Mr. Neal. — Q. Do you consider the settlement a sufficiently favorable one for the creditors of Mr. Budd? Ans. It was considered the best that could be done. By Mr. Montgomery. — Q. Docs Mr. Wylde recollect of Mr. Harvey's submitting an account at that meeting purporting to be my individual account with the firm ? Ans. I do not. I i m I 29 [iiducc him to Jc WHS. [e Jill claims." I & Co. were |e to rank on It form as cal- act, imply as jposition, and )n an estate," It would, if suppose that T. G. Budd ? iderstood, and Budd was a IMoutgomery V. Budd as a } the crediiors iVant to know i\ Budd was a ^st in the firm re. ' there was a miery in that resjjective in- olaim to the I the account. with a much md in Dodce o your firm ? itly favorable the best that kir. Harvey's dual account Q. Do you recollect my stating that if my account was $10,000 the other way, my proposition would still be the same ? Ans. I don't remember. Q. Did Mr. Blancha d, as representing Mr. Budd, take any part in that meeting? Ans. He did. Q. Did Mr. Harvey take my account and show it at the meeting of creditors? Ans. I don't remember. Q. Did you ever see the statement that was submitted as Mr. Budd's account to the meeting, and especially the foot note? A71S. I don't think the creditors had this before them. By Mr. Bremner. — Q. Would you understand the phrase that *' the ac- count was submitted without reference to Profit and Losss" .is expressing whether there was profit to be credited to the account or loss to be charged ? Ans. I would not. By Mr. Montrfomcry. — Q. Would not such a phrase as a foot note be likely to attract attention and imply that tlie account was incomplete ? Ans. It would. Q. And if such a paper were put into the hands of a committee of busi- ness men to compare it with the ledger, would they not be certain to examine that very point ? Ans. I should think so. they would not be doing their duty if they did not. Q. If you were assignee of an estate, and supposed that any person held assets belonging to the estate, and held such a document at this, and you em- ployed an expert in accounts to compare this with the ledger, do you think he would be misled by such a foot note V Ans. It ought not. By Mr. Menzies. — Q. Would such an account serve any purpose at all ? Ans. No, not by itself. The examination of Mr. Budd's account was here resumed. Mr. Bremner to Mr. Montgomery. — Q. Whereas there appears in the account rendered a balance of !i?973.66, (Dr.,) (S3,623.25) ; (Cr.,) ($4,596.91) and in the letter to Mr. Harvey a balance stated at 81,624.21. Can you account for this difference V Ans. There is a difference of six weeks in the entries. Q. You will observe that the whole of the indebtedness, including the capital, was drawn in 1870 according to the statement. Does it not follow that Mr. Budd was intitled to draw interest on $3,500 per annum not drawn ? Mr. I^Iontgomery declines to answer in the form in which the question is put as tending to confuse matters. The Moderator asked Mr. Bremner to state the precise object he had in view in putting this question, and Mr. Bremner replied that he wished to get the true state of Mr. Budds account at the time of the settlement with Dodge & Co.'s creditors. Mr. Montgomery waives his objection and answers the previous question in the allirniative. "^ w i| mm 30 Q. On;;lit not Mr. Budd to have been credited for interest, roughly as follows : — From August '67 to fi'8 on $3,500 $210 " '08 to '69 " 7,000 420 " '69 to '70 " 10,500 630 say $1,260 ? Anx. He was entitled to that amount of intccst in any settlement of co' parteruership business. Q. Deducting the $1,260 of interest from $1,624 as stated in letter to Mr. Harvey the debit would be then, $364 ? Ans. I will not allow that there was any interest to be credited to Mr. Budd in consequence of his not fulfilling his agreement as a partner, and I further say that I did not consider that he was entitled to any profits or interest until the business was settled or adjusted. Mr. Bremnerhere wishes it to be recorded that he declines to question Mr. Montgomery any further, in consequence of the last answer given by Mr* Montgomery. Mr. Menzies mooes — That Mr. Cook be requested to make up a statement of the accounts as respects profits and interest of both partners in the firm of AV. Montgomery & Co., from the beginning to the end of the business in con- formity witli the articles ot co-partnership, and submit the same to the court when ready. The motion being agreed to the court further decides, on to- morrow to hear Mr. Montgomery with reference to Count No. 6, and also Mr. Budd's statement of his position in relation to the whole matter, and there* alter Mr. Montgomery's statement in conclusion. Adjourned to meet on Saturday, 8th Feb. at 3 o'clock. Saturday, Fkb. 8th, 1873. Session met ot 3 P. M. pursuant to adjournment, and being constituted with prayer Count No. 6. was taken up, and Mr. Montgomery made the fol- lowing statement in reference to this charge : — Mr. M.'s Explanation of Count VL—1 hold in my hands a note of $5,275, a draft ot G. P. Black on Budd, accepted by Budd, due in Oct. 1870; two weeks after the discovery of the position of Dodge & Co., Black wanted funds from me to meet it. I told him that I had done all that I could and could do no more. I was extremely sorry to find that Dodge & Co. were in- debted to him $45,000, Black told me that the whole sum was for their ac- connnodation. The note was due at the Bank of British North America, and held by Hase and Lowell. I asked Low^ ' to renew it for thirty days. He positively refused ; and I spent the whole ...y running round and doing all in my power to assist Black in the matter. I may say that naturally he was very angry with Budd, and when Budd came back, 1 did all I could to smooth things between the two. 1 took Budd to Black's oflice for that purpose. (I remember, and mention it to show what impresdion Black had of my endeav* 31 ours, lliat oil that occasion after Budd and I liad left liis ofR 'c, lie called Budd Ijack Lo him. On BikM rejoining me, he said that Ulaek had called him lia'.'k to tell him Montgomery was a noble fellow.) I made up my mind that it Lowell would break the note, for SI, 100, and one tor the balance, I ^Tould di^'ount the lesf■.t to Mr. Montgnmerij. — Q. Did you ask Mr. Lowell to renew the note in full before you proposed to break it in two? Ans. I did. Q. Then you concluded to discount the note for Si, 100 because Mr. Lowell refused to renew for more th^nS4,000? Ans. Yea. Q. Did you understand from Mr. Lowell that the debt was Mr. Budd's or Mr. Black's ? Ans. Mr. Lowell could not say, ho had assurance from both that it would be paid at maturity — it was a renewal. Q. Looking at the acceptance as drawn, whose debt wouhl you suppose it to be? Am. Mr. Budd's. Q. You spoke of Mr. Black sending for a small debt due — was that a debt justly due ? Ans. Yes. Q. Did you understand the letter of Mr. Harvey as a formal demand for the return of what he considered justly due to the estate of Mr. Budd ? Ans, Yes. Mr. Montgomery's letter to Mr. Black dated 18th Aprill871, is here pro- duced. Q. Is the note for !»1,000 herein mentioned the one charged to Mr. Budd on the 9th Nov.? Am. Yes. Q. Is the note for $500 (as Dodge & Co.,) the same as that charged to Mr. Budd on 1st Dee. 1870? Am. Yes. Q. Is the note for S500 charged in account with Dodge & Co., the same as that charged to Mr. Budd. Am. Yes. The Moderator here briefly reviewed the proceedings up to this point and asked Mr. Budd if he had anything to state with reference to the charge in Count No. 6. Mr. Budd then stated that he had not fully understood the constitution of the court — he cjime seeking its protection on moral grounds, he f. It himself most terribly agrieved morally and financially, and never imagined that any one with a human heart could be susceptible of the hypocrisy and conduct exhibited by Mr. Montgomery to a brother, asserted the honesty and integrity of his own life, and declared that he regretted no act of his life so much as his conneetic. -"ith Mr. Montgomery — since his first acquaintance he had been grossly deceived — and charged Mr. Montgomery with conspiring with Reuben Hart, Levi Hart, and W. Chisholm to rob him. Mr. JSeal to Mr. Budd. — Q. Had you any arrangement with Mr. Mont- gomery verbally or otherwise besides the co-partnership ? Am. No. 32 Q. \Vli;it was your fluty in connection with the co-partneri?liip? Anf. To pivc! uilvicc and assis^tancc. (I. Do you eonsidtT that you jjave Mr. ^Iont<5oniery all the help that you should iiave j^ivcn him? An^. J do. (I. Were you obli^^ed by the partnership to put your individual name on notes when riMiuired ? Ana. No. M.\ Men:ii's to Mr. Bndd.-^Q. In this arranj^ement with Mr. Harvey for furni- point out >n creditors* $6,000 less nduced me ling by our then did he mged with ery & Co. ter to me, JProvince, 5; I write ber mills." on to the le persoa 3t, speak- n then to I will not 1 1, could me on." me ex- it! some- otal for I, an es- tablishment that employed 900 men. I had 10 per cent on CTCry contract; had no responsibility; had time to pursue other business; and was contented and happy. The Company then wished me to go to New Orleans the centre place in the United States for machinery of various kinds. They offered me $4,000 a year, and one-third share of t'w profits in the office, or to make a permanent •tay in New York at $5,000 a year. On June 16, 1866, I wrote to the Com- pany, putting in the form of a proposal wliat had been discussed between us i — " to open a concern in New Orleans for (1) $4,000 a year and one-third of the profits ; (2) the rent of the office (3) the store to pay salaries, commissions, and bad debts ; (4) the entire management of the office to be mine." I had been brought up by my father as a mechanical engineer, especially in connection with the machinery of Cotton Manufacture. As far as my ex- perience goes, the best managers of machine simps have been men trained in cotton mills. I had in the States charge of an hundred mechanics, though I did not myself go through a regular apprenticeship as a mechanic. From the age of fourteen, I did not cost my father a dollar. For t«n years as a young man, I had $1,200 a year. And then entering into business in Yon- kers, I owned a machine shop there, and built up a good business. In view of those facts, is it not malignant to say that I deceived him, that I induced him to invest in manufactures, knowing nothing of mechanical tngineering. The fact is that I never rely on a foreman ; that I make my own plans and estimates. When I came to Halifax, I did not crowd myself into any position. But in positions to which I have been called, I have found my- self hampered by Mr. Budd. From our connection in this Session, you know my views, tests, and opinions ; and that in controverted matters, I prefer to stand in the back ground, so that I may the better J^eep n^y mind free from bias. My reputation is in your hands. I ask no favours. If I have not an- swered your charges satisfactorily, I am disappointed. 3. It is implied that I am under moral obligations to Mr. Budd. I fail to see it. On August lOth, previous to the failure, I oflfered $10,000 cash, as my letters show, as one of the terms of settling with him. Does that show that I wished to take advantage of him ? A merciful Providence prevv^nted him fiK)m accepting the offer. Had he done so, I would certainly have been accused of conniving with him to get him out before his failure. He is unfitted for honest work. He expected to make money without his own labour. He never did anything but biag and slander. Suppose that he had got hold of the property of our firm, what could he have done with it ? It would not have helped him one iota. Am I under moral obligations to this man — the only man that objected to the only practical settlement that could be niade, by pouring poison into the cars of Mr. Black, and who ever since has acted in the same spirit. Would I not be doing injustice to others, if 1 gave money out ot the business even to friend or father ? >l 38 T liave endured all that Christian endurance could demand. Till he re- pents, OTight I to do more. I am under no pecuniary obligation to him. Moral and social obligations he has violateil towards me. Cross-examination of Mr. Montgomery' a concluding statement. — Q. What was the understanding about what Mr. Rudd was expected to do, wlien the firm was started? Ans. I understood that he was a rich man; that he was to relieve me from all financial difficulties ; and that he would always be ready to give aid and counsel with respect to contracts, &c., &c. But I never could get him to give any attention to the business. I expected that his ser- Tices woidd be equivalent, along with the interest on his investment, to what my services were worth. Several times in conversation with him, I expressed dissatisfaction with his failure in these respects, pointing out specially that, by Iiis ronduct, he was estimating my services only at $950 a year. Q. As to the letter you read, referring to Mr. Budd's refusal to sign a i-enewal note, was that the first written intimation you gave him of your in- tention to charge $2,600 for attending to what you had considered to be his work ? A ns. It was. Q. Had you done so previously in words ? Ans. Yes. Q. Had you mentioned the amount Tcrbally ? Am. I think that I had mentioned the amount. Q. How early in the history of the co-partnership were you dissatisfied with his neglect ? Ans. During the first 18 months, I didn't mind it much; but even in the course of that period, I spoke to him on the subject. Q. Regarding Subdivision 1 in Count IV., is the charge therein implied correct ? Ans. It is untrue. My business had been with the South ; and, during tlie first two years of the war, it was almost wholly suspended ; but in the next three, I made more money than in any other six years, The examination here closed, and the Session decided to meet on Monday, 17th inst., to receive the statements to be prepared by Mr. Cook, late book- keeper to W. Montgomery & Co. Closed with prayer. G. M. Grant, Moderator G. Maclean, Clerk. \ \ Session Room, 17tii Feb., 1873. Present : Rev. G. M. (Jrant, Moderator ; Messrs. Menzies, Bremner, Lindsay, Neal, Hesson, and G. Maclean. Mr. Cook's statement from the books of Wm. Montgomery & Co., of the accounts of the individual partners, and of the profit and loss of the firm made up to 30th March, 1870, was produced and considered by the Court. A copy of the same was oixlered to bo sent to Mr. Montgomery with the information ttiat the Session would meet on the eve;iing of Feb. ?4th when any written remarks that he may choose to submit on the statement would be received. The Session adjourned to meet on the 24th inst., at 8.30 P. M., to pro- ceed to judgment in the case of Mr. Montgomery. G. Maclean, Clerk. rres( llesson, Mini Ale bv Mr. " the acc( 1 pressed '^ account Eac Oil the unaniii Ad J / J- Pr Unds ^\ Tl fully being in tht tbllov C c rect, (,f V OjV^ . An t y Mr a? o! a •w-iJ^^^^E Tin he re- |f'on to him. ■Q- What I wl)i>n the piat he was J always be ■But I never I'lat his ser- ^N io what e.xprt'ssetl f'a"/ that, 'o siorn a >^ your in- 1 to be his t'latlhad ''^satisfied ' 't much; '1 "nplied '«h; and, J ; but in tte book- rrt/or. \ \ 73. emner, of the I made copy lation ritten ed. pro- 39 Skssiox Room, 2GTn., Fkb., (adjourned from 24tli.) Present : Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator ; islessrs. Menzies, Urcniiier Hesson, Kni^^ht, Ncal, Lindsay, and G. Maclean. Minutes of last meetiii}^ wese read and approved. A letter from Mr. Montgomery with reference to the accounts submitted by Mr. Cook was read, and the same was ordered to be kept in retcntis, with the accounts, and the Session wish it to bt' understood that the opinions ex- pressed in Mr. JMontgomory's letter with reference to other matters than the accounts, are not considered as forming part of the evidence in the case. Each member present as formerly agreed upon, expressed his juslgment On the case, and it appeared that the conclusions arrived at were all but imanimous. Adjourned to meet on the 10th March. G. Maclkan, Clerk. Session Room, IOtii MAncn, 1873. Present: Rev. (i. M.Grant, Modcrat(jr; Messrs. Neal, Hesson, Knight, Lindsay, Mcnzies, John Mcljcan and G. Maclean. Minutes of last meetinfi; were read and approved. The Session then took up the case of Mr. Montgomery, and having care- fully weighed all the evidence bearing on the case as now on record, and being actuated by a desire to make .all due allowance in behalfof the accused* in the trving circumstances in which he was placed, nevertheless find as follows : Count No. 1. — Proven. Count No. 2. — The account referred to in this count proven to be incor- rect, and calculated to mislead as to the^true interest of Mr. Budd in the firm of W. Montgomery & Co. Count No. 3. — Non proven. Count No. 4.— Section 6.— That the offer made to Mr. Budd on the 10th August 1870, proves the injustice of the representation made to the creditors I'n the account of T. G. Budd dated 2nd December, 1870, and in the letter to Mr. Harvey, oflering to buy the concern dated Gth Jany., 1871. Count No. 5. — Proven, but not to the extent stated in the count. Count No. G. — Proven. Count No. 7. — Non Proven. The Session having considered Seriatim the list of charges preferred against Mr Montgomery sustained by such documentary and personal evidence, as was attainable after the lapse of so long an interval, since the occurrence of those circumstances out of which the fama against Mr. Montgomery had arisen, now put on rec(jrd the general finding they have come to on the subject. In doing this they think it not necessary to state that to them the case has been an unspeakably i)ainful one. They had to try a brother who had been associated with thcMn for years in the si)iritual leadership of the congre- gation. They gave the utmost diligence to the matter, hoping from the first I Jv.; • . .., 01 Nov.3 wcolia HALlry\X. N. .a. / \J J 40 that they would have been able fully to acquit their brother, they also felt that the great responsibility on them was to judge righteous judgment. Their decision is, (1.) That Mr. Montgomery's statement to the Union Bank was not an accurate one. They think that Mr. Montgomery must know that it was cal- culated to mislead the Bank, with respect to the condition of the firm, and by consequence to the ability of Mr. Budd as a partner of the firm of Dodge & Co. They regret that in the course of the investigation, Mr. Montgomery did not see and confess this. (2.) With reference to the settlement effected with the creditors after the failure of Dodge & Co., the Session sympathise with the difficult position in which Mr. Montgomery was placed ; but without saying that Mr. Mont- gomery's offer to the creditors was not the utmost that he could undertake at the time, they regret that he used language in his letter to the Official Assignee and in the statement submitted that, to say the least, was calculated to mis- lead creditors as to the actual interest of Mr. Budd in the firm of W. Montgomery & Co. (3.) With reference to Charge VI., they consider Mr. Montgomery guilty of an improper attempt to obtain money from G. P. Black, and that an apolo gy to Mr. Black is due. The Session accordingly instruct their clerk to transmit to Mr. Mont- gomery a copy of this finding, and to express the hope that Mr. Montgomery w'U concur in the judgment of the Session, and make the reparation suggested, the Session also notify Mr. Montgomery that, on the first Monday of April at 8^ P. M., they will meet for further procedure in. the case. , G. Maclean, Clerk. ^ yj — Session Room, 8th Apkil, 1873. Present : Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator ; Dr. Avery, Messrs Lindsay, Bremner, Hesson, Knight, Menzies, Neal, John McLean, G. Maclean. The Moderate handed in a letter from Mr. Montgomery appealing to the Presbytery from the decision of Session in his case, which was read and tabled.* If was moved, that Mr. Bremner, Mr. Menzies, and the Clerk be a Com- mittee to prepare a printed history of the case ; and also a statement of the grounus of the Session's action for the information of the Presbytery. G. Maclean, Clerk. .J^ ■- ' — i.i ~ . ■ ■■ ^ ^ ■ I ■ - ■ . i.i » . - . 1 1— — -I— . ■■ ... I - — ^ • Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator op Session, St. Matthew's Church : Dear Sir, — The Session Clerk has furnished me with a copj of the Minutes of Session held on the 10th ult., in which I find recorded the general decision of the Court upon the charges preferred against mc. From that decision I respectfully appctil to the Presbytery as the next higher court. My appeal is based upon the following grounds ; 1. Undue bias of one or more members of the court against me. 2. The finding is contrary to the evidence produced. 3. The ruling respecting the transaction with G. P. Black is not in accord- ance with Christian Courtesy. 4. The general ruling is not the intelligent verdict of a majority of the Session. Yours truly, (Signed) Wm. Montgomeuy. \: STATE^ llerchar Unfinisl Cash pail 'Iiey also felt ■ ment. Their < ^as not an •t was cal- ^^m, and by of Dodge & ! 1 ontgomery ' ' ditors after \ , ^t position ^ ' l^^r. Mont- iertake at m Assignee f^ f ^ ted to mis- "^ ^ ^rm of W. 'eryguiJty j- J anapolo '' ^r. Mont- K i ntgomery j » "ggested, ^ April at lerk. )[' ^K 373. Lindsay, S to the tabled.* I Com- t of the sh RCH ; ''niites of the JtfuJIy cord- sion, APPENDIX. A. STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF W. MONTGOMERY k CO. FURNISHED TO UNION BANK, HAT ^: AX. ASSETS. Merchandise on hand as per inventory Unfinished Contracts and work... Cash paid for real estate .... .... " " Machinery and fixtures Amount due from individuals $29,310 4H 7,51« 32 21,406 50 a^.,272 00 5,000 00 UABILITIKS. Bills payable . • ■ . .... DueT. G. Budd Due Individuals .... Miss Cogswell's Mortgage. Balance $20,766 00 7,746 00 2,000 00 16,000 00 43,062 28 $08,574 28 ,^ $08,574 28 $26,689 75 Net profits foi: two years ending April Ist., I860, after paymg interest on mortgage, and putting premises in thorough repair .... .... (Signed) "\V. Montgomery & Go Halifax. Aug. 17th., 18G9. E. & O. E. , ' s. This Indenture made this Eighth day of August, in the year of our Lord, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Si.x, between Thomas Gilchrust Budd, at pro- sent of the City and County of Halifax, N. S., Merchant, of the one part, and William Montgomery, late of New York, Machinist, of the other part. Witnesseth, that the said T. G. Budd, and William Montgomery, have mutually agreed to become partners, for the purpose of conducting the machine business at the " Nova Scotia Iron Works," formerly known as the " Chebucto Foundry," in the City of Halifax, in all its branches. Tiie style of the firm shall be William Montgomery ^'. Co., and the co- partnership shall exist for ten years, unless sooner dissolved by mutual consent. T. G. Budd furnishes Fifteen Thousand Dollars in cash, which amount i to be passed to his credit free of interest, the said interest being given by him as an offsett to William Montgomery's services. T. G. Budd to be at liberty to engage in other business pursuits, but to gire his counsel and aid when required. 7 J./ . -I m 42 T. G. Budd and William Montfjomery each own one hall' interest in the property and in the profits and loss of the business, the profit and loss to be ascertained annually by the books of the firm being balanced^nd after pay- ing the debts of the concern due on mortgage of the property and interest thereon, the balance of profit or loss to be passed to the individual accounts of the partners of said firm. Each partner is authorised to draw annually of the profits, Thirty Five Hundred Dollais, and if the full amount ot said sum be unused, the party thus short drawin .jk.. 26,689 75 «/" J 8,850 65 ^/^ .y,. 6,971 49 1^ f §57,511 89 "^ ^ 14,469 61 / ^43,042 28 ^ , Y /t®''""^^^) ^^'^*'- Montgomery. u/ 1)n Tix E. & O. E. v.. ; \(1\ *-' \ ■ \ ^ \. L lerest in the h^ loss to be V after pay- |nd interest |al accounts Wrty Five [' the party ling- I^ollars is or unless Kesiring to 'r partner ecution of He is to 'suit with s and the business y agreed. inanase n of three UKRT. ^&C0. ,842 28 (> r '42 28 ^ BY. 43 3. STATEMENTS, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. ASSETS. Merchandise on hand us per inventory Unfinislieil Oontnict and work.... (.'ash paid for lital E.statc " " Machinery and fixtures. Amount due from inilividuals $20, .-^lO 46 21,116 50 ;3r),-J72 00 5,000 00 UABILITIK8. $98,574 28 Kills payable .... Due Thomas G. Biidd.. Due individuals. .. Miss Cogswell'H Murtjjage Balance .. $29,7<>6 00 7,74C, 00 ... 2,000 00 10,000 00 ... 4;}, 002 28 $98,574 28 Net profits for two years ending 1st A^iril, 1869, after paying interest on Mortgage, and putting ))remi8es in thorough repair 20,089 75 (Signed) Wm. MoNTGOMEiiY & Co. Halifax, N. S., 17th August, ISGD. To prevent misunderstanding and save time, it is admitted that statement made to I'nion ]5ank is made uji on correct principles, and it items are correct, shouh I sliow the exact balance of assets, which is stated to be, on 17th August, ISC,;* $43,002 28 The profits, shown in statement to Union Bank, are said to be up to 1st April, 1809 20,089 75 Add to this estimated profits from 1st April to 17tli Aug., 1809. . . . 3,000 00 $27,089 75 The total capital put into business allowed to be. .. . .... .... 15,000 00 Withdrawn from business to 17th Aug., '09, by W. Montgomcry.$ll,218 21 " " T. G. Budd.... 4,502 41 15,780 02 The above being acknowledged facts, it is impossible tliat tliere could have been a balance of as.sets to amount stated on the 17th August, 18G9. The balance of assets over liabilities could only be created Ironi the following source, viz. : — Capital put into business .... .... .... $15,000 00 Profits to 17th Aug., Ib09, as above 29,089 75 $44,689 75 Less withdrawn by partners up to 17th Aug., 1869, as above 15,780 62 Balance of Assets should be Differenoe $28,909 13 $14,1.53 13 Mr. Montgomery, on being asked how such a balance could arise, states that it was actually there, and gives the following items as representing how it arose : — Ca))ital.... .... Profits .... .... .... .... Outlay improving buildings Addition to Machinery, by labour, &c.... $15,000 00 20,0,S9 75 6,970 52 8,850 65 Less amount withdrawn Being nearly the same amount as balance of Assets claimed. $57,. 510 92 14,409 61 $43,041 31 44 The amount of $8,850.65 was included in the item of assetfi in statement to banlc as " cash paid for machinery, and fixtures, $35,272, and could only have been paid for from capital or profits. The amount of $6,970.52 "outlay on improvement to buildings," as explained by Mr. Montgomery, might properly have been put in assets, as increased value of buildings in statement to bank ; but it was not, and cannot affect the question of the incorrectness of said statement ; tor, if it bad been placed there, the balance of assets would have been increased by that amount, and would then have been shown to be ($*t§?g g|) $50,082.80. As already stated, the balance of assets over liabilities could only be created by amount of capital and profits, with amounts withdrawn deducted. To make assets (balance of) amounting to $50,032.80, the statement would stand thus : the amount of Capital being ascertained to be 815,000 00 Profits to 17th March, 1869, (§50, 813. 42) 50, 813 42 $65,813 42 Less amounts withdrawn from business 15,780 62 Balance 850,032 80 The only conclusion that can possibly be arrived at from above calcula- tions is, that, in the statement to the Union Bank, either the Assets are over- stated, or the Liabilities are understated, or the Profits are understated. Of course these calculations are based upon facts brought out so far, and believing that the amount of capital put into the business was only $15,000, I have put the above in this form, believing that a great deal of time may be saved by understanding each other. Jas. J. Bremner. Halifax, N. 5., ^ih February, 1873. To Rev. G. M. Grant, Moderator Kirk Session, St. Matthew's Church E. . Halifax, N. S. W. MONTGOMERY, ESQ., In Account with W. MONTGOMERY & CO. 1866. Db. Sept. 18. ^ 25. To Cash $79 oo .... .... .... .... •••• •■•* Q 41 Nov. 8. ' 74 31 «„ 1,000 00 26. " 50 00 Deer. 1. 360 00 7. ' 44 33 13. 85 82 19. •••• •..• •••• *••■ «••• •••• •••• 160 00 20. •••• ••■• •••• •••• •••• •••• 50 00 1867. Jan, 3. : NV. S. Symonds & Co.'s bill against you, settled by us in .1 ■> 'junt with them " Amoua. ')! Thomas Boggs & Co.'s bill against you settled by us in it.;i'i>unt with them " Araauii; oi A. Stephen & Son's bill against you, settled by Ud in account with them To Cash Mch. 12. 14. 20. 24. 28. 31. CI n • •■• *••• ••■• (••• •••• •»•• ••«» •«•• • • « • • • ■ < • • • • • • • < April 18. 27. 20. May 15. & 1. 4. 20. 23. 30. Jmne 13. 11. 28. July 13. 16. To 1 bbl Flour .... .... .... ... .... .... t_^{^Sil ••»• *••• •■■» •••* •••• ••■• " Amount ol Moir & Co.'b bill against yon settled by us in account with t:.' in .... .... .... «... ... .... *' Amount oi I'helan & Kelly's bill against you, and settled by us in acco' I lit with them .... .... .... .... .... " Amount of J. Allan's bill against you, and settled by us in ac- count V \th them .... .... .... .... .... To Cash to I. Montgomery .... •... a... t... ...a .... ...- TolbblFLur To Cash . • > . .... .... .... .... .... . . . ■ I. To 1 bbl. fl>)ur .... .... .... " Amount . if our account against E. Dodson credited by him to you ill ! lis bill against you .... To Cash .... .... .... .... .... .... .... «... .... " Draft on IJoston, U. S. Cy. • »•■ •••• « • • » '--- _,,_ vvvv vwvv «■«« ••«* •••* To Amount of .Moir & Co. 'a. bill against you, settled by us in accour.f with til nm .". To cash .... .... .... .... •■«. .... .... ••>• >•.. •••» 28 21 80 00 50 00 10 80 M 50 44 42 171) 2a i03 00 69 58 86 70 57 97 22 10 1 40 11 25 15 90 14 83 52 75 35 60 58 50 202 48 20 00 25 00 M 73 9 58 33 74 10 00 2 48 16 00 24 00 17 85 10 00 14 10 til 00 11 00 16 35 25 00 20 75 1^3 70 262 50 •J2 50 li25 00 ;»0 00 20 56 25 00 10 00 i:i5 00 29 00 19 00 Si 50 July 28. Aug. 27. Oct. Deo. • Sll 00 as 00 ll 28 21 • 80 00 50 00 • 10 80 :ni 50 ■ 44 42 171) 25 103 00 1 69 58 86 70 57 97 22 10 1 40 11 25 15 90 14 8a 52 75 36 m 58 50 202 48 20 00 25 00 ^0 73 9 58 33 74 10 00 2 48 47 July 28. Aug. 27. To Draft on Boston, U. S. Cy Tolbbl. lioiir...." '. .." To cash .... Aug. 7. 13. 14. Sept. 5. 8. 9. 14. 17. 30. Oct. 9. 7. 20. 26. 29. Nov 14. 30. 2. 6. 13. 19. •I •• 4 " " " $5..50.. " Truckage .... .... .... To Cash Dm. 28. 31. 2. 9. 17. 24. 14. 31. 14. 1869. Jan. 9. 8. 27. Feb. 6. 9. 1. Feb. 15. Mch. 13. To merchandize amount of Moir & Co's. bill against you settled by us in account with them • • • . . . • • . . • • " 20 bushels potatoes .... .... •••■ ■••. " amount of our account against C. & W. Anderson credited to you in their account against you .... .... To Cash S114 25 • ■«• •«•• ••«• •■•• •«•• XO *r I «••• •••• •••• •••• •••• Aj\f tf\J • ••• ••■• •••• ••■• •••■ I \)\} ••*• •••• •«•• #••• •••• tH/ UU • ■!• •■#• •••• •••• •••• o ol/ • ••• •••• ■(•■ •••• •••■ .••• XO \J\} «•■• •••• •••■ ••■• •••• Ox) UU To Amount of W. S. Symondt & Co.'s bill against you, settled by us in account with them . .... . • • • • • • • • • • • $50 00 . . . . 35 00 9 25 • • • • 12 85 12 15 • • • • 50 00 35 00 « • • • 6 65 21 65 8 25 10 40 • • • • 11 90 126 78 • • • ■ 15 00 170 00 • • . • 7 .50 .30 00 75 00 20 64 • • < • 30 44 39 63 31 50 72 72 > . > > 35 00 20 00 . . . . 43 88 46 45 . • . . 18 .58 22 50 22 00 5 00 11 25 262 50 • • • * 81 84 8 00 72 00 24 90 d by . . . . 15 50 8 00 267 59 To Cash Draft on Boston, U. S. Cy., $231.63, at 25 per cent dis. •••. •••■ »••" •».- •-.. .... To Amount of Moir & Co.'s bill against you, settled by us in account with them . . .... . • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • ■ " 10 bush. Potatoes at 35 cts To Cash . . .... .... . • • • • • • • • • < • • • • • (< _ _ , .... .... .... To Amo»nt of T. Boggs&Co.'i bill To Cash .... .... •.. .... .... ... .... .... •... .... .... .... .... *' .... .... .... .... .... .... a... 276 05 50 30 173 72 12 90 27 00 10 80 3 50 50 00 40 00 7 45 59 00 28 89 388 41 !U. ':^>iia.aigitiftw>g»a»a ^.rmtnn.- 48 • 25. 1& IB. 5. 29. May. 3. 13. 14. 2. 31. J une 14. 18. 6. 15. July 2. 24. To Amount of Gordon & Keith's bill against you, settled by us in account with them .... .... . . . • .... . . • • 78 50 " Amount of Phelan & Kelly's bill against you, settled by us in account with them .... .... .... .... .... 8 68 To Cash .... .... .... .... .... .... 3<>0 b7 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 'iv v^f •• 10 70 " Drafts on Boston, $2,500, and $285, less discount $556.40 2,228 CO .... .... .... .... .... .... x^ uu << li l< li To 1 can, 50 lbs. White Lead .... " 1 can, 12i lbs. Yellow naint " 1 can, 25 lbs. White Lead .... •• 3 boxes hard soap, 192 lbs. at6i cts " 1 chaldron Sydney coal "■t • • • • • • • ■ 21 81 • ••• •••■ .... 30 00 • •••• ••• 82 59 • ••• ■••• .... 145 73 292 13 •»•• •••• • • • • 5 75 • •*• •••« *••• •••• 1 00 • ••• •••• • • • • 2 50 •■■• •••• *••• •••• 12 48 • ••• •••• cts" • • • • 9 25 5 00 2 50 27 48 bbl. V. P. Sugar 293 lbs. at lljcts To Cash " Draft on Boston U. S. by $95.43 at 21 p. c. discount 75 38 To Cash .... .... .... .... .... .... 162 50 ■ ••• •••• •■•• •••• •••• •••• Ov Ov £§ I 4'x To amount of Moir and Go's, bill against you, settled by us in ac- count with them 12 90 X o i^asn .... •«.. .... .... .... .... o XU 25 00 •• 40 00 Aug. 3. 28. Sept. 27. Oct. 7. 18. 5. 18. 16. Nov. 5. 16, in. Dec. 2. 8. 9. Dec. 31. Jan. 10. To 1 letter copy book .... .... .... .... .... " paid Freight of tress per "Carlotta" To Amount of bill W. S. Symonds & Co. against you settled by us in account with them.. .... .... .... .... To Cash 11 i< .... .... .... .... .... .... .... <( .... .... .... .... .... .... .... i< To i chaldron Sydney Coal " Cartage " 1 Italian Iron " 8i Chaldron Coal at $5 .... " Cartage of do. 60cts per load To Cash 2 63 30 65 00 20 00 2 00 96 00 4 50 110 18 58 67 219 03 64 50 154 92 2 93 25 22. 42 50 5 10 47 60 67 25 52 52 18 72 85 83 30 00 253 87 12 00 56 00 37 90 94 53 220 43 20 00 .... 262 50 262 50 16 70 10 60 29 50 24 00 342 20 To 1 bbl best crushed sugar 210 lbs. at 12^ cents. 25 13^ " Amount of E. M. McDonald's bill against you, settled by us in account with him 7 50 " D. Starr & Son»bill against you settled by us in account with them 95 « It « II II 11 II (t i( II •' Draft on New York $250 U. S. Cy., at 20 p. c. discount. II i< II Jan. 24. 1 8. 10. 12. 15. 27. Feb. 23. ',», .'T- 78 50 8 68 330 67 40 00 10 70 ,228 60 292 13 5 75 1 00 2 50 12 48 5 00 2 50 27 48 277 44 12 90 8 10 65 00 20 00 2 00 96 00 4 50 110 18 58 67 219 03 64 50 154 92 2 93 25 47 60 49 Jan. 24. To 1 bbl. Flour 8. To Cash paid note for your account 10. " 12. •' 15. " ^1 a ■■•• •••• •••* Feb. 23. 19 85 73 75 25 00 ... • .... (>4 44 .... .... .... ■«.. .... .... .^.j yjyj To Amount of Gordon & Keith's bill against you, settled by us in account with them 64 20 " of Alpin Grant's mu against you, settled by us in ac- count with them of J. C. Crosskill's bill against you, settled by us in ac- count with them *' of Compton k C'o.'s bill against you, settled by us in account witli them .... .... .... .... .... .... •' of W. S. Symonds & Co.'s bill against you, settled by us in account with them .... • ■ . . .... .... .... *' of McDonald di Co.'s bill against you, settled by us in account with them .... .... .... .... .... .... 1. To our note for C & W. Anderson for account against you To Amount of our account against C. k W. Anderson, credited to you by them in settlement of their account against you To Cash remittance to New York .... .... .... .... •... «... LD XX 35 00 'M 00 20 GO Mch. 1. To Amount of Charles Annand's bill against you, settled by ua in account with h in' .... .... 9 00 of K. T. Muir's bill against you, settled by us in account with him .... .... .... .... .... 23. 6. 19. 18. 11. << It 4. To Cash 1 • ■ • 31. << .... .... .... .... .... .... ■ • • • April 4. " paid our note 9 months due this date for C, W. Binchie on your account 18. & 25. To li Chaldron Sydney coal 21. To Cash 16 00 <( 14 84 <( 32 40 May 4. << 11 29 << .... .... ...* .... .... .... 65 25 ii 262 50 i< 66 75 6. Bills Payable our Note 3 months for S. C. Allison & Co June 1. To Cash 26 15 .( 13 71 .< 37 34 <( 142 00 July 14. " 52 75 .... .... .... ..** ..«. 262 64 31. i( 150 15 Aug. 22. (( 53 77 «... «... .... .... .... .... 105 66 It .... .... .... .... .... 14 00 •«•• •••• .... $8,820 90 21 50 2 51 1000 00 50 00 Halifax, N. S., Jtdit Itt, 2567. 7746 89 -S8,820 99 T. O. BUDD. a. THOMAS G. BUDD in aceoutU vntk WILLIAM MOIfFQOMBRY & CO. 1866. Db. P^pt. 7. To Merchandise « . « » •••• .... «•»> •••• •...) \ 21 50 Got. 3L 4( do .••• ••*• »*•• «•.» •••* 3 00 Nov. 30. II do 120 00 Dec. 31. >« d« 60 00 1867. Jan. 16. II do |Btr» Sosnt) ••«• •••• ••■• •••• 23 94 Feb. la II do •• • • •••• •••• •••• ••«• 60 0ft 28. II do 60 00 4. *i CaA 1000 oe' 23. II Merchandise.... ..... • 2 51 Uch. 20. i< OaMi .... •••« .... ..••• •••• ««.. 50 00 ApL 9. II Memhandiae 208 46 May i« do (BtnChioora) 60 00 July L Harvey, of Halifax, being solemnly STrorn, depone that tho account hereto attached, signed for W. Montgomery & Co. by John Cook, was rendered to me about the 2nd December, 1870, by Mr. William Montgomery, the senior partner of that firm, in order to she me, as the legal representative of Thomas G. Bndd, the position of his in'* -est in the firm of W. Montgomery & Co., and 1 know of no other account having been rendered to me for that purpose. John H. Harvey, Assignee. Sworn to before me at Halifax, > this 5th day of Feb., 1873. \ B. W. SALTE3, J. P. S. NOVA SCOTIA IRON WORKS. Office of W. Montgomery & Co., Halifax, N. S., January 6, 1870* John H. Harvey, Esq., Assignee of W. L. Dodge if Co., and T. G. Budd: Dear Sir, — Having afforded you all the facilities and information you required, as to the property and liabilities of Wm. Montgomery & Co., and the relation of T. G. Budd thereto, I now make the proposition in wi iting which I have done verbally, as to a settlement of Mr. Budd's interest in the concern. I hold notes and balance of accounts against W. L. Dodge & Co., amount- ing to 83,180.72, and a balance against T. G. Budd, of Si, 6 2 3. 51, together amounting to $4,805.23. This, as successor to the firm of W. Montgomery & Co., I propose to relinquish, and waive all claims I may have to rate upon the estate of either Messrs. Budd and Dodge as individuals, or as a firm — upon the condition that you vest in me any title you may hold as assignee of T. G. Budd to the property held by Wui. Montgomery & Co. I propose to take the whole concern with all its responsibilities, settle up the affairs of Wm. Montomery & Co., and carry on the business on my own account. I make this proposition in order to effect an immediate settlement* which is imperative under the circumstances. Hoping that the information in your possession will warrant you in accepting the proposition, and that all parties interested will see the propriety of acquiescing in the same. I remain, yours truly, Wm. Montgomery. Dec. as per lie that fy John t^Illiam as rhe in the pg been / V ^ ^ . 55 iJ^ ^ I. Messrs. Wm. L. Dodge & Co. NOVA SCOTIA IRON WORKS. Halifax, N. S., Dec. 19, 1870. To Wm. Montgomery & Co., Dr. 1870. S«pt. 16. Our Note at 3 months fo. Wilkinson, Wood & Co Sl.SlJo 00 Nov. 12. Retired, Wm. L. Dodge & Co., protested Note our fo.... 1,025 75 30. Retired their protested Note fo. W. J. Chisholm, $770.90 Legal Expenses $5 775 90 Dec. 1. Retired, Wm. L. Dodge & Co., Note fo. T. G. Budd 500 00 Cr. §3,881 65 By Balance Cr. of Work Account " Balance Cr. of Cash Account.., $ 240 30 1,231 51 1,451 83 $2,409 82 Balance due [Insolvent Act of 1869]. In the matter of Wra. L. Dodge and Thos. G Budd Insolvents, and Wm. Montgomery & Co., Claimants. I, W. Montgomery of K.iifax being duly sworn, depose and say : I am a member of the firm of Wm. Montgomery & Co., Claimants in the matter, and the said firm is composed of myself. The insolvent is indebted to me in the sum of Twenty Four Hundred and nine dollars and eighty-two cents, as per account herewith rendered I hold no security for the claim. Sworn to before me'> and I have signed, at Ilalifiix this 19th >- day of Dec, 1870. ) John H. Harvey, Interim Assignee. Wm. Montgomery. J. Halifax, Aug. IOtil, 1870. Dear Thomas, — Since our last interview regarding business matters, I have reflected seriously upon our affairs, and as the result, propose the following : If you wish to withdraw your interest in the concern, I will purchase the same for the round sum of thirty thousand dollars, and pay as follows : Cobie's notes to bo retired as they mature . . . Amount drawn by you as per balance .... V-'fiSll •••• •■•• ••■• •■•• ••< . . $15,029 00 4,762 49 , . 10,208 50 $30,000 00 Two months after your agreement to sell, to be allowed ma to effect the arrangement. A deed of trust, if required, to be placed in the hands of some suitable person, to secure you against the liabilities of the concern. ii 56 If you do not accept the above, then I propose to credit myself with S2,500 as salary, in consideration of my attending to the financial as well as the other business of the concern, and this matter to be referred to arbitration according to the terms ofoui* co-partnership, providing you do not agree. Your serious consideration and early answer will much oblige me. Yours truly, Wm. Montgomeky. NOVA SCOTIA IRON WORKS. Office of W. Montgomery. Halifax, N. S., April 18, 1871 Ma. George P. Black Dear Sir, — My young man has just delivered your message to me, the tenor of which is that you intend to commence a suit for amount of bill you hold against me. I now beg to remind you that your draft for Sl,000 due Nov. 9th, 1870, 13 still unsettled, and also that your endorsement note of W. L. Dodge & Co for S500 due Dec. 5th., having been endorsed by me after you had to be retired at maturity. It was not my intention to trouble you about these obligations at present, but after the receipt of your message, I shall now re- quire a settlement. Yours truly, Wm. Montgomeut. L. Halifax, N. S., Janu/ ry 28, 1870. Mkssrb. Wm. Montnomery & Co. PRESENT : Gentn. — Having arranged with Mr. P. A. Chazal for the settlement of the amount due by me to the Charleston Importing and Exporting Com- pany. I enclose four notes for thirty four hundred and fifty six dollars each, at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, which please sign for my accommodation, and when paid at maturity, pass the amount to my debt in account. Yours truly, T. G. BuDD. THOS. Di 1866 Sept. Oct. 3 Nov. 3 Dec. 3 1867 Jan. 1 Feb. 1 2 Mch. i Apl. May July 186: July Nov. Dec. 186 Jan. Feb. Mch. 18 Apl. •Tant July Sept 18 Feb. Mch 57 f with well as tration agree. Y. 1871 ne, the )ill you , 1870, & Co, d to be it these jow re- 0. lement f Com- each, n, and 2C. THOS. G. BUDD, ESQ., in (wcounf wtB. April 1. To Draft on Boston... 2228 00 13. " Cash 330 67 " do 40 00 16. " do 16 70 20. " Merchandise 8 25 30. " (Jash 209 54 May " Merchandise 47 46 " (.'ash 277 44 April 28. " do Omitted 82 59 June 4. " do 65 00 14. "Merchandise 12 90 18. " do 8 10 July 24. " do 6 50 26. •• Merchandise 00 96 "Cash 130 10 Aug. 13. •• do 58 67 31. " do 219 03 Sept. "do 64 50 27. " Merchandise 2 93 30. " Cash 153 92 Oct. " Merchandise 47 85 " Cash 223 87 Not. 30 " Bills Receivable ... . 250 00 "Cash 250 43 Dec. 31. " Merchanflise 25 13 "Cash 343 20 1870. Jan. 6. " Bills payable 778 80 10. " Merchandise 7 5o 22. " do 00 95 24. " do 7 00 " Cash 203 04 " Gordon & Keith's Feb. 1. " Bills DayableC.&W. Anderson 362 00 " Cash C.&W. Ander- son 106 71 8. " Merchandise 5 00 23. " Sundry Accounts. . . 81 32 " Cash remittance to New York 1356 87 "Cash 106 71 Mch. 1. " Merchandise 9 00 11. " do 24 68 "Cash 38 22 April 4. " Bills payable 790 58 18. " Merchandise 3 80 21. " Cash 68 24 25. " Merchandise 6 60 1870. April 30. " Interest on $588.99 per Memo, from 1 April 18G9, 13 months at 6 p. c. 38 28 " Interest on overdraft per memo 77 82 " Profit of loss to date 39 54 " Bal. carried down.. 558 49 $9,839 34 1869. Cb. April 1. By Bal. brought down. $7560 26 15. " Cash 2226 67 Nov. 30. " Merchandise disct.. on drafts in U. S. Cy 5000 1870. Jan. 24. By Merchandise 2 40 $9839 34 62 111870. May 6. 31. June m. July 4. 30. Aug. 31. Sept. 30. Oct. 31. Nov. 30. Cr. To Bills payable 360 00 "Cash 4U5 79' " do 219 20' 'Aug " Bills payable 83176'; " Cash 465 54 " Currency drafti .... 220 00 "Cash 3;i7 88 " do 88 10 •• do 173 60 " do 40 64 •• Merchandise 34 39 " 7 months Interest on $5976.22 at 6 p. c. 209 51 " Profit of Loss to date 4915 74 1870. Dec. 1. $8,284 35 To Bal. brought down.S6001 76 1870. Dr. May 1. By Bal. brought down.. $ 588 July 27. " Merchandise 26 " •• do 1606 do 91 ** BaL carried down. . 6001 31. Oct. 31. Nov. 30. 40 15 87 08 76 88,284 35 I certify that the foregoing account current of Wm. Montgomery, Esq., from page 1 to 6, is to the best of my knowledge and belief a true and correct statement of the said Wm. Montgomery's position as a partner in the firm of Wm. Montgomery & Co., on the 30th November 1870, as far as could be ascertained trom the books and documbnts at my disposal, without reference to disputed undercharges or overcredits. John Cook. Halifax N. S., 17 th January^ 1873. STOCK OR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF W. MONTGOMERY & CO. 1866 March oL By Machine-shop 8860 65 '^ Profit and Loss. . .17627 27 ** "Wm. Montgomery for interest.... Dr. 1868 March 31. To T. O. Buddforint.$ 21 80 " T. a. Budd tran8..13178 34 " Wm. Montgomery transferred. .... 13178 34 $26376 48 1869 March'si. To T. G. Budd for interest 576 22 " T. O. Budd, trans. 4297 68 " Wm. Montgomery, tronsferrMl .... 4297 58 $9171 38 18691 April 1. To Profit and Loss, sundnr bad aocti. tronsferred. 9066 64 1870. April 38. '* T. G. Budd for int 666 98 $3613 62 056 $26378 48 1869 March '3L Bt Profit and Loss.. 9162 48 " Wm. Montgomery for interest.... 9 90 $9171 38 1870. April 30. By Profit and Loss, for profits to date. . 3418 33 " Wm. Montgomery for interest 116 10 " T. G. Budd for loss 38 55 ** Wm. Montgomery for lou. 39 54 187( Jane Aug. Sept. Col NOY. I Mon best ■scei J 0k ^ $3613 52 63 B8 40 ^6 15 87 08 76 )4 35 1870. Jane 30. Aug. 9. Sept. 30. Oct 31. Not. 30. Dr. To sundry bad accts. transferred 1051 71 " Fuller, Lord & Co., balance 35 " Sundry bad accts. transferred 9 94 '• Sundry bad accts. transfer) od 1181 " Sundry bad accts. transferred 1898 31 '* Depreciation in vaL of Machinery.... 3500 00 " Merchandise for amt due from profit o^ pevious years .... 4186 25 " Expense account.. 120 00 " I of interest account 1961 21 " T. O. Budd for int. 1250 04 1870. Cr. Aug. 9. By Cook & Co.'s balance transferred 71 Oct. 31. •• Fraser.Paint&Co.'a balance 6 50 Nov. 30. " J. M. Beach & Co.. 63 6.3 " J of Merchandise account, Profits.. 3877 39 " Wm. Montgomery for interest .... 209 51 " T. G. Budd for loss 4915 94 " Wm. Montgomery for loss 4915 94 $13989 00 $13989 62 I certify the foregoing statement of Profit and Loss of the firm of William Montgomery & Co. to be a true and correct stateraent of said account, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to the 30th Nov., 1870, as far as could be ascertained from the books and documents at my disposal. John Cook. Halifax, N. S., 11 th February, 1873 A V /..■..:...:: of Neva Scoiia HALIFAX, N. S,