, 1877-06-24
TIE PROTECTION LIFE
Its Officers Swear that Its Stock
LIS Worthless.
After Having Stated On Oath to the
Auditor that It Was Fully
Paid Up.
4 Chance for Somebody to Investigate
This Conflict Of Testimony.

A case Of considerable Interest has been On
trial for the past two days before Judge
Rogers in which William o. Osgood Is plaintiff
and the Protection Lifc-1nsurance Company de-
fendant. Tho suit was brought to recover
5000 Of stock OF the Company. II appears
that tho stock In question was issnel 10 Mary
4. Williams, who paid forIt by check and then
borrowed the check, givtn0 somc real estate
security. In The spring Of 1879 tho stock was
sold to osgood, and lie asked the Company to
transfer II 10 him on its books, but It refused
on tho ground that tho stock had not been
paid for BY Williams. .Osgood, therefore,
fusal. Tho Company raised tito defense that
Williams had not paid for her stock; that tho
ncthod Of paving for the stock in all cases was
by giving checks on bank, aud then borrowing
alao scheduled With tho State Auditor. Tho
real catato Williams gave was rejected 1t
Springfield, and sl'e then turned uver soma
property fn Jefferson fask, which was also re-
sstsd = isnen bu xnsh hg Pss.dsnt
ity for bis own stock. The Company also allcg-
ed tllRt tho stock Nls Of no Salue.
The painttH showed that in August, 1870,
when tio Company w.s osgaq':ed nd a t.;
reported uhder oath that II had Sil0,oo0 OF
paid dup stock in cash. The officers Of the Com
pany also kwosc to tho same facts. Atnung tho
list was Wil1lams' stock, which WAS stated TO
Of tho Company Tor is70 nied With Tie Auditor
showed tho. satne facts. Tho reports of ls12,
1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876 wero also offered ia
evidence, showing cont!nucd sales Of stock for
cas, 70 TINT by 1875 tho whoio capital stock Of
0D00 hAd been subscribed for and paid up I1l
cash. II 1873 dividends we're paid to tic amount
1n.W, in ls75 to tho amount Of Ss,449.1S, and
in 1870 TO the amount Of !9,42t.@.
T7A fH$ ~
tho stand, who awore that tho stock had not
been paid up in cash and that It was
NOT woRTH ANYrnIA0t
II the sse Of ta tas m .hsh 'oHsa
Judge Rogers, IN objection being made to this
testimony, held that this testimony thut tflc
stoclk hal not bccn pain for to cash was tnad-
mfss!b'c, TINT tho Company ~as cstopped from
prortng that the stock VIA not paid for on the
ground that IT, officers mad committed them
tclycs by their record furnished to tho
State Auditor aud therefore cou1tl
not econtrovert those rccords and
prove themselves falsiden: that otsooa
Of those records. and that llc was mtslcd by such
advantage Of ita own wrong: The case was
given to tho Jury Saturday. morning at 10
they returned verdict tn faros Of OsgoNd for
Si0,070.G7, that l,cIng tho Yaluo Of tho stock
with per cent interest from the time Tho Cotn-
pnpy refused 10 tEansfcr It 10 him.
This suit places Nj. tlfliiard In rather An un-
cnslnblc light, as having sworn from year
10 year that t.e stock waa paid up In cash, u re-
qu{rcd by the laws Of shu etate, aud
jet swearing when his interests were
tho other way that 1t had not bern paid for At
all. 1t IS ulso an Interesting question to know
whence tllc largo sums were derived to pay
81, 100 dlvIdcnls In one year, when tue Com
mally adyertiscs that It only retains 10 eents on
each assessment, and soma 81 10 90 on each
new policy to- meet expenses. Certainly It
small aggrcgattons. In tho present suit sicssrs.
G. W. Constantine nnli c. n. Handy appeared
for tho plaintiffs, and Mcssra. Haines and Tripp
for the Company.