The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-12-16
POKER SCIIENCK IN COURT
OTERHA ULING THE OPERATIoNs
LITTLE EMMA NINE.
British stockho oidcrs Seeking Redress at the
Hands Of American Justice-Iiow Baron
Grant Launched tho Company In England.


Grant Launched tho Company In England.
Ex-Minister Robert G. Schenok aud
other distinguished persons were In ceurt yes
terday, listening to tho proceedings In the case
of the stockholders Of the Emma Mining Com
pany Qimited) against Trenor w. Park, Henry
II. Baxter, and william W. stewart. Darrster
Foukes OF London and Il. w. Stoughton APP
pc red for the plaintiffs; the defendants were
represented by ex-Judee william A. Beach aud
Messrs. Chittenden and Phelps.
The case was opened by Mr.. Stoughton. He
first called attention to the arrangements be-
tween Baron Albert Grant and Trenor w. PARK
for the organization of a stock company whose
list of directors should be a guarantee TO invest
ors. Grant undertook for 10000 to launch the
company In England. English law required
that all such contracts should be detailed in tho
ptosnecms. Failure to do 80 was constructive
fraud. The company WAS formed, and a board
of directors was selected. The evidence
showed how prominent men were induced
TO lend their names to the enterprlse. One
important iDducement to Stockholders was
the ct that Minister Schenck's name figured
In the list OF directors His influence was se-
cured by the promise OF 1000 shares Of stock
and a guarantee OF two per cent. month on the
par value Of the same. payable whenever he de-
sired IT, This $4,000 worth OF stock returned
Mr. Bridges Williams and other English cipi-
talsts, together with Prof silliman Of Yale
College. were induced to 90 TO the mino and
preciated greatly In call price. After suits for
possession had been defended, ind large
amount OF piying ore had been taken out, ID
was ascertained that II WAS merely "pocket "
mine, whose richness was already exhausted.
The company got less than "A dozen dividends,
aud the shareholders left their Investments on
the wreck.
The te, e,timony Of Baron Grant. taken in Lon
don aud read to the Jury, showed that the de-
lis Of the lrst prospectus-the ground of the
plaintiffs demand for relief-were first made out
by Mr.. Coates, nut were discussed and altered
by witness and by lrenOr ". Park. Witness
bad received more than Rs0O,UO from Park at
different times AS proceeds OF or In furtherance
OF the enterprise. An explanatory statement,
made under crOss-ex mination by Baron Grant,
was ruled out by Judge Wallace. The fact
however, was brought out more clearly that
Park had read and strength ned the prospectus
deposition by William Henry roOkcs. Sec
retarN OF the company, was read, showing that
the company was duly registered III accordance
with English law. rhe deposition Of Col. J.
L. anley. director, was next road. IL was iu-
tended to show how Grant as Park ) agent In
duced the capitalists VINO lent respeCtability to
the enterprise to allow their names to be ured
r. Reach interpoaed an objection at the first
English law aud financial custom countenauced
the employment Of n broker ana promoter II
such enterprises, and that Baron Grant was
such "A broker. Mr. Park consequently was not
responsible for his acts. Mr.. StougntOn arg ed
that MIR. Park made himself liable when he
signed and promulgated the prospectus. and
was responsible for the acts OF bis selected
agent, Baron Grdut.
rnis argument occupied the court until its
adj 1urnment 70 Monday morning when Judge
Wallace will decide upon the admissibility VI
the testimony.