The Placer herald., 1872-06-22
PLACER COUNTY vs.. THE CENiRAI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY EFT AL.

This case came up yesterday in the Sixth
District Court, Judge Reardan sitting for
Judge Ramage, who was disqualified by
reason of his having been of counsel for the
defendants. 1t is case wherein Placer
county, having in 1868, subscribed $780,
600 of the capital stock of the Central Pa
cifc Railroad Company of California, re-
tained it until April, 1870, without receiving
any dividends, and then sold it, now brings
suit to recover SIS 200, COO and 1000, 900
acres of land, which it claims as its just por-
ton of the profits made in constructing, fur
uishing, equipping and operating the railroad
and telegraph line of the company. The
plaintiff prays that, pending the suit, re-
ceiver be appointed by the court to take
charge of the affairs of the company; that
the Directors be enjoned from acting as such
and from disposng of the property; that a
ein be decreed upon the companys effects,
and that they be sold and the proceeds be
distributed among the stockholders.
The complaint set out in legal language
that on the 9th of June, 1861, the Central
Pacific Railroad Company of California was
organized with capital stock of So, SOC, 900;
that Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins Marsh,
Charles Crocker, E. b. Crocker and others,
unknown to the plaintiff, were the Directors
for the first three months; that thereafter,
falsel y claiming to be owners of majority
of the capital stock of the company, they
elected themselves a majority of the Directors
and retained themselves in office as such,
exercising entire control of the affairs of the
corporation; that they received from the
United States, from the States of Nevada
and California, and from various counties
lands aud bonds to the value of $156 ,S25, :
$50; that instead of having the road con-
structed as economically as possible by Off
GERS of the company, the Directors entered
into an arrangement among themselves first
under the name of c.. Crocker & Co., and
afterwards under the name of the Contract
and Finance Company, and, letting con-
tracts at the exorbitant rate of two hundred
per centum over and above the actual cost of
labor done and material furnished, realized
and divided among themselves a profit of
$211 299 1923. II, which should have been
paid to the stockholders; that from the pro-
ceeds of the earnings of and the donations to
the company the Directors purchased
and built other railroads, which were
subsequently consolidated under the names
of the Central Pacific Railroad Company,
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and
the San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda
Railroad Company; and that if dividends
arising from the net income from all sources
had been fairly distributed among the stock
holders, the whole amount of such dividends
would have exceeded $50 900, 900 prior to
the sale of plaintiffs stock.
The complaint joins as defendants the
Central Pacific Railroad Company, Central
Pacific Railroad Company of California,
Western Pacific Railroad Company, San
Francisco, Oakland and Alameda Railroad
Company, Southern Pacific Railroad Com
pany, Dutch Flat Wagon Road Company
Leland Stanford, G. p. Huntington, Mark
Hopkins Charles Crocker, E. b. Crocker
E. II. Miller, Jr., B. II. Redding,, w. +.
Brown, Contract and Finance Company, G.
Crocker & Co., California and Oregon Rail
road Company, John Doe, Richard Roe, A.
Stiles and A. Niles. The case came before
the court yesterday and to strike out all the
names joined as defendants except those of
the Central Pacific Railroad Company, Stan
ford, Huntington, Hopkins and Redding,
upon the ground that, as appears from the
face of the complaint, the other parties are
defunct, and therefore cannot be sued; also,
to strike out various port ons of the answer
relative to the issue of stock to the Directors
by themselves, the donations of land and
bonds, the earnings of the company and the
cost of the road, as 'immeterial, irrelevant,
redundant, vague and uncertain" The mo-
ton was argued for the defendants by Judge
Sanderson and j. B. FELTON,, and for the
plaintiff by Judge McKune, the latter con-
tending that all the parties named as de-
fendants were interested in the suit and were
therefore properly joined; that the matter
proposed to be struck out was necessary to a
showing of plaintiffs claim, and that if it
were not it should be demurred to by de-
PENDANTS instead of being met by motion to
strike out. The counsel for the defendants
argued that the interests of theparties named
in the motion had been transferred to the re-
naming parties defendant, who alone should
be sued; that the matter proposed to be
struck out is mere surplusage and unneces-
sary to clear presentation of the case; that
the motion was in order because it was not
directed against plaintiffs cause of action, as
demurrer would be. The case was taken
under advisement by the court.-Sacra-
mento Union.
TAX ON WHITE HArs.-The House of
Representatives, on Monday, the Sd inst,
| e.,;aLoJ tho Tariff hill oud want to work unon