Article Text
COMMUNICATIONS. Another Word From Mr. Nojes. To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER: I am sorry to ask again the favor of appearing in print or to correct the errors of reporters of other papers. The Register reporter says that "Mr. Noyes has attempted several times to prove that the order of court of sale be in his own name and president of the company, etc." This is not true, for never at any time have I so attempted or desired, and it is extremely absurd to so represent when your paper had kindly published my late and former petitions and protests. So far as relates to my formal notice to Russell, receiver before the sale, and W. J.Atwater, the purchaser, after the sale they have their meaning. The former was as follows: "Notice is hereby given T. H. Russell, acting as receiver of the American National Life and Trust company, under orders of the Superior court, on a case of 'John W. Stedman vs. the American National Life and Trust company,' when there is no such case pending in said court, which said proceedings were remonstrated against by the undersigned, duly filed with the clerk of the Superior court on the 20th day of September, 1886-a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. That the undersigned protests against the legality of said order, and therefore protests against said sale, this day, and notice is hereby given said Russell that if said sale is made that it will be resisted by some proper action on the case before some proper tribunal which will hear the same and render judgment thereon. "Dated New Haven, Conn., this 20th day of B. NOYES, September, 1886. "Attorney for himself and others, etc." A somewhat similar notice, after sale, was served on Mr. Atwater, the purchaser, to put him on his guard as to legality and title, and I never said in this or any other paper that I claimed that sale should be made in my own name-or by any other name-and I never stated to anyone here what court would be resorted to for a review of the whole insurance proceedings, for not even the Supreme court has yet revised the whole doings of the lower court in this insurance business. As to what I said about Judge Beardsley, it is this, "that dislodging my petition was in my belief a high handed act, that neither Congress nor the Supreme court of the United States afforded such a precedent, and that it was not unlike a doing of the old 'Star Chamber court' of England, which finally cost the king his head by a higher power; and that some court of high power would hear one yet." It is exceedingly disagreeable to be reported as saying and doing that which I never did, when the publication of m/ short legal papers would give reliable information to the public and leave me to stand or fall upon my own words not theirs. Thanking you for your kindness, I return to my business in New York, and for a full B. NOYES. review of this.