New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-01-28
TIE MERCHANTS, UNION EXPRESS CASE.

TIE MERCHANTS UNION EXPRESS CASE.
Mr. Strong, abiding TO the llaskln suit and
Receiver claimed that II the order for receiver in that
suit was be considered before tho court the com
plant and proceedings IN that suit must be considered az
tn Judge ingraham said that he did not consider IL ma
terla in any view. e might treat them "a before the
Court not. he pleased Mr.. strong wished to can
attention TO at least matter which was not now IN
tho adavts OF the DEFENDANTS VIA That concerning the
purchase OF his shares from LSy 70 o
OF stock of which, however only 100 sto9d ~ ms
motion the plaintiff had always right 70 read
afdavs In reply. Judge Ingrahain sald that ms prhc
lice VIVA contrary 10 the doctrines claimed but possibly
he other side would consent The counsel for defendants
after reading the adaylts consented II tins were ALL TO
allow them TO be read Mr. Strong SAID that besides this
they proposed read copies OF matters taken from tho
books OF the Company. The other counsel objected,
Judge Porter saying that the fact that they had been
Kept back t then sufficient TO throw suspicion upon
them Judge Strong said that the reason wy they we're
they did know that any appeal to the books would
mdge Porter said the admission would be fatal this
notion since IL partly founded on the statement
that they had not been able TO obtain access TO e BOOKS
duced rebut tho allegation that their statements were
Judge Comstock was willing to withdraw the charge Of
having made incorrect extracts In their papers -.
After discussion aud examination, the ea ae
from the minutes admitted. The palhtln aIhuEis
read to the effect that he held 400 shares OF t 20 he
which the Merchants Union had refused 10 stapdinS
transferred to his name besides the 100 shares suA
In his name. II, d. ,,o,nt that this
100 shares taken from MT Reyes M m show
gwen by him. he had introduced TINS ~ Sh1h
no such consent was shown but as 70 ho Vo tue
Comnany having allowed him 10 take OUT cerincate
,yjthnut noce of such y consent, WAS estOpped from
1870 a. nm e stated that mueh OF the AFFIDAVIT was
,te,rt md that Jebbs relating pretended interview
~ ar tiles entirely unoonnected with the PLAIN
w - Tho Injunction In this Issued, could
I'M Sih, or" Saaring on this matter.
~ S,rop argued that the Executive Committee had
40 Sep rs make this consolidation. This power was
no pOd nnder AN alleged amendment OF the Articles OF
hncStion made Oct l, 1868. itself resting on the
pIty OF Article II OF the original articles Of assoela
ton giving power 70 amend But he claimed that tho
oep 20 amend did not mean power to destroy or sub
or rho Company, 20 merge IL, or change lite business
bn other ground for injunction, and also Tor Re-
ayer was based charges of unfaithfuness against
tba tecutiye Committee, The facts charged with great
naptcnnrty In tho affidavit OF Graas, were substan
hsv nncontradcted. and. in some instances, directly
Snttnd On the admitted facts his Honor must grant
the relief asked Here were 900 advanced TO o. W.
IosceIyn CO. for some underlined purpose called pro
tectnS the nterests OF the stockholders $4,000 paid 70
The Esecutivo Committee and Attorney, on account OF
services during the years 1885 and 1897 $4,000 xas Vosea
soonths later this action was revoked bus meanWlho
thers WAS an opportunity for making abort sales mo
% lion for Duplicate minutes kyows that it 10 70 DO
oflc,a record II approved. worse transaction
sno The issuIng OF $50 shares TO Gen. slocnn, anu
to humber 70 John A. 6reon. r and 500 SHARES 70
= ~ atorke in November last TO smooth over inc von
| iolidatOn Another item waa tho paymen' !" 'u~S'