Article Text
LAWYERS SUSPICIOUS. They Are Watching One Another in the Guaranty Case. The first real friction in the proceedings for the appointment of a receiver for the Guaranty Loan company occurred yesterday, when about a dozen attorneys gathered before Judge Russell, and the order, all prepared. was presented for his signature, appointing the Minneapolis Trust company to that position. The court asked if there were any objections, and James W. Lawrence, representing some of the creditors, was on his feet at once, and stated that he had no objections to the company, but that there were some of the surrounding circumstances that he did not like, and he would like time to look the matter up. Asked what the circumstances were, he stated that he had learned that in case the Trust company was appointed, Mr. Bartelson would act as the attorney for that receiver, a fact that he thought was manifestly unjust, inasmuch as that attorney had been at work for the company for so long, and knew all the ins and outs of its way of doing business. He did not think that it was fair to the creditors. Mr. Bartelson stated that as a matter of fact he had not been advised of any such proceedings, and that the company would probably appoint whoever it wanted. That was a matter to come up after the appointment of the receiver. Mr. Truesdale had an inning, and stated that he arose for a correction of Mr. Lawrence's statements. He had heard that Mr. Hale, another attorney who of late had been actively working for the Guaranty Loan company, was to be employed, and for that reason he had the same complaint to make as Mr. Bartelson. Judge Baily arose and explained for the benefit of all parties that the attorneys were not objecting to the receiver named, but only asked some time to look into it, which he thought was perfectly proper. Mr. Hale reminded the complainers that they were not parties to the action at all, to which the attorneys took issue with him, and at last Judge Russell adjourned the hearing until 9 o'clock this morning. Messrs. Lawrence and Truesdale explained themselves after the matter was over. They stated, in substantially the same terms. that the transfers of the building and assignments of a great number of mortgages had been at the advice of the two attorneys mentioned, and they did not think it was justice to the creditors to expect that these same attorneys would come into court and fight these transfers, for the benefit of the creditors, when it had been under their advice that they had been made. The argument this morning will probably be a heated one, unless some amicable arrangement is made before that the comto time. pany will It is agree understood appoint that another if attorney there will be no further objections. Mr. Hale states positively that he IS an attorney for some of the creditors, and that he does not expect to be an attorney for the assignee.
