New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-10-09

Mny. Peg. q. l. ~ Philip Observation-Disclosures sr..s.4
J:.sgh W:.hsun TO-. ~ Everett clsps. ts-Msuea 4.
Before Jous B. HAsEiy. Referee.
| RIGHTD OF CORPORATIONS.
0oshxm D. Abbott ayt Tie American Hard Rubber Con.
This action was brought BY stakeholder and
Ga:h q az: s :Ss %p Il
Of Hard usbeo for Of sa r.:
action ws commenced in 1851 after long litigation com.
po d s:
value Of the property 70 he COMPANY q the time Of tho sas
purchase money and that In such eIcssed S2
o the plaintiff should have the option Of Purchasing thst
The Hon John B. Han who appointed such rsf.sss
proceeded TO hear the proofs offered which were concs
% By @ the and " iS. c
doxa for the plaintiff The Referee has filed his report In vos
Of the paina upon the Issue before him. together with s
John b. iis.sn sseres.u the view that have taken II
S, s,, VII q. not 81 Sscs's 70. me now TO 'pe ny
Waving discussion Of the facts relative TO the SALE The
rssS q sasos
i Ss ,o 20 snd dpesd o iad
mi sht justly bsve been very sumrnsrily decided.
doubt that The Tespec'ys ,aus OF the patent. =
asked whs. the value Of PATENTS yoq nussooa TO ts
probab, uuro Otherwise the patent would De e9gsy valua
be No bnsns,. nan would think Of ignoring the fsct tat
pae. had pehod Of yesrs end what woald Probably
s realized oi II during that PERIOD In escer;siDu, ito value
on particular day think the testimony eayss 40 dogbs
that Ire 20 value q tse property In question
than 10000 Taking hr. RDpess eaete OF the property,
than the patents to be accurate tie value Of Thai prop
cry was SeS,0c0
a. 70 the value o. the pens only necessary for
saw that IN view Of Of the defendants including u
fac, they paid ior these patents 10 m ca,n and ga
90 in (which tsk a. the valuation paced 1poa ~
tho answer, would DO e,1a to $500 king total
81 9 !, !. unii i9r me 70 I've ~, s5s 40 " ITO O.
Certainly neiher individuals nor no Trustees 90 uey
ave away what, according % sIsn sAusI0b ~O
II Is no answer for them say that in their pre'sn. view,
H.. stock vaueess, for he pe2dgs show cesfy that
taken by Goodyear and parted with ~ the Company -
being Of the yslue Il S37,yO. ,,
without going infinitely into the evidence think he
confusion as, that this pfopessy Al ess ,c san
TIA, think testimony of opinion -
Of tie patents, and which wGs cjeri ~ both
r. not COMPETENT but from the nature 81 The inquiry
to great tbs only proof tia, could be Furnished H.
think class Of evidence SHOULD be conisrec cAnnos
hcsa~ say that ,hs es;nony Of Nh Day whose erperf
euco and q1slArl seem rlcuesoned aaa whose cit
when speaking Of the va se o. mo Goodyear
P.,e,- which had been sustained against MS own oegns
o, 10 be doubted Is .n.i~d eres'or WEIGHT than the
or The d.niants sno those ss.ccia,. aad Interested
them. BIZ Dsy said hat tie 'sne oil the patents zoe
Of tho night e license, and % naniclEe ehass
,vouI h. froun go 3OO end considered n con.
nec.0n with the night OF rcnevs he regarded TIE 'su'
don1e hat sEoun. Ih. sLlas.ee We y nv. Ia
-Iacu b1; in Reaching my deterniln Ls'o nO' ieo
upoa any single piece oil testimony 49,, 1900. ~
Nih0l, reducing 10 writing statement OF ne process u
asiv. aud EXAMINATION, 20 which have oecied a.. we ev'
Of value tink sufficient 70 say tia, have ea's'ay
desed IT, her with al The eIu stances ~. ne
az. i.roses aud nv M fix and liberal cons'rneton Tor
III. d.at. her. 10 no doubt ny MID that tEe property
aud patents tho BIB day Of February i'0' were "1a
sss, the sun 81 Isd,5 , -, 49,. 49,.
sSef Cariosa or the pllr,ia w Curtis and James T.
Brady for The 4efendAnis-