The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-02-19
INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITIoN COMPANY.

The AFFAIRS OF The Industrial Exhibition Company
promise to undergo pretty thorough ventilation in
the pending the existing controversy between
the company aud Morgcnihau, Bruno i Co., their
financial asen,A The matter came yesterday before
Judge Lawrence, IN Supreme Court, Chambers on a
motion TO continue an injunction granted by Judge
Donohuo in April last The company claimed that
their agents had not compiled with the contract
entered Into with them, and upon that they obtained
thc injunction, which provided FIRST that Morgenthau
Bruno & o. should no longer hold themselves out
90 tho pubic be the financial agents OF the company
second that they should not dispose OF any bonds
OF the company their possession; third
shat they should not interfere with the company A
motion ON behalf OF the company TO continue the in.
junction adjourned from time TO time until last
January. when Mr. Dudley Field on behalf of defend
ants, moved 10 compel the plaintiffs TO bring their
motion Tor argument Then IL put of on various
accounts until yesterday when Mr. H. r. Averill
urged mat Mr. Dickerson, the company soounscl was
absent IN Washington. Judge Lawrence said that ex-
had already been repeatedly offered aud longer
avaiicd, and inst tho proceed Mr.. Aver,ll
then asked that the defendants might open aud the
plaintiffs have an opportunity TO put In a brief next
Monday, which The Court permitted.
Mr.. Dudley Field then presented his objections to the
90 enjoin person nom interfering with corporation.
he being officer or that corporation palpa
bic absurdty; second, that to cnjon them from hold
tng themselves forth financial agents OF the corpora
tiOn was a similar absurdy; third that 10 cnlon them
from interfering with the ponds OF the company was
without foundation, for was not pretended that de-
PENDANTS were abunoanty responsible, lastly that
the case mado out by the plaintiffs formed
no good groundwork for injunction, and
NJ Il did every material fact de-
MOD not alone In terms. but explicitly aud
In detail with documents annexed fully explaining all
transactions between the parties, showing, among
other things thai The very attempt on the part OF the
plaintiffs break the contract might have been fooled
BY Morgcnthau, Bruno CoU they, who were mem
hers OF the Board OF Directors had voted on their
case. But from high sense OF honor they declined
% vote The vote 10 against them and DO.
sides themselves (twol IN their iavor Had they done
as most men would have donc--v0icd in their own
faOr-they would have been forced into this liti-
CATION.
v Mr. A. Ayerlll in reply said the Industrial EXHIBIT
lion Company authorized 10 ISSUE S2O,OOO,OOO IN
bonds, sie0 600 OF which were gwen to defendants TO
be issued Before getting the second 100000 they
were 10 account for the hrst THIS they tailed 10 do,
and secured their election 10 the Board Of Directors,
where they procured modification Of the contract and
obtained tJVO 30 of the bonds and went to work 10
Sell them. They 20 deposit the proceeds
10 the fiEh National Is nix, but they
never did 50. They refused 20 account
eni over again the allegation made that
they received about tlc0 900 IN money and kept IL
alt The contract required them pay over SIS 900
within three months. They never did paw over any.
thing. except some small disbursements Incidental 10
thc progress Of the business. As 10 their being re.
sponsbie Il nOw appeared there was Judgment In the
hands OF the sheriff against them Finally tho de.
PENDANTS were expelled from the Board when II was
found that accounting could be had Mr. Avcriu
declared ia conclusion that the object OF Morgcnthau
Co was 10 break up the companys business So as to
get II into their own hands.