New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-05-24
THE COURTS.
THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CONTEST

THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CONTEST
. vrpn,c-r TO-DAY IN THE HAvEMEYER SUIT.
The suit of William A. Havemeyer and
Henry o. Havemeyer, administrators Of Albert Have
meyer. against John G. Hayemcyer and Henry have
meyer which has been trial for nearly three Weeks
before Judge Curtis in Superior Court Trial Ierm was
submitted YESTERDAY to the jury. Albert Hayemeyer
held l 1876 Long Island Railroad shares par Too INC
total capital stock being 10000 shares. william T.
Havemcyer he'd GOA shares This stock was bought
from Oliver Charlick, and Albert and william lave
meyer acted with the Charlick management AFTER their
Deaths John G. IIayemcyer. who owned nearly loooV
shares became dissatisfied with the Charlick manage
men and in the Spring Of 1879 or the Winter OF l91o
an arrangement was made between the paintiS, Johh
C. Hayemcyer and Henry Havemeyer who represented
william T. Iiavcmeycrs stock, and owned some STOCK
himself that their stock-neary "A maiouty-should oo
united with such stock they coud influence Tor inc
election OF a diherentdrectory Of the company ms
carried out. ana on april Is, 10 "a ~ to
hoard OF directors was elected, lnc-ndng the ,t"o
defendants. Henry Hayemcyer was elected PRESIDENT
and John C. Havprneycr and two gentlemen represent
ing the Albert Hayemeyor stock wcre placed on le EA
ecltiyo Committee. 1t was claimed by he paihtu'7 tA
at that lime il understood that neirhcI party Wou
sell ont without consulting the other The pn'iis rs
administrators were then anxious to sell ous 70 ro'n Up
o II. C. Popprnhuscn, then controlling me fVal toiu'
both north and south OF the Long Island ro. Oi ths
le defendants were aware. These negotiations con
unued through the Summer and Fall John T.. PARSONS
and Horny o. liayeneyer conducting tie Iol t3 Pa,
largely for enough stock % control the iOa On NoN
IL 1873. the plaintiffs and defendants entered mo
verbal agreement that neither party ShOud sen without
the other. They then control cd together ""eft! O
the stock The terms OF the agreement are me an.coo
on either sides giving formal NOTICE 10 tho other Inc
decndsnts saw Il was ONLY to continue until the Monday
following Nov % 1873. on Jan. 20, 1876, tho defend
ants sold their Stock and the stock oi some "cf
nerson utrnsted 10 them for sale without The plaintiff
stock at - per cent 10 Mr.. IoDpeunusen. Inc pIliI
breach Of tho agreement ana u lFhtu
on t6e That the stock left on ner hands practically
a
Pending these nego atons the plaln' hdd distnHl'u
the stock Of Albert Hayemeycr estate among those
entitled to 1t. though they HAD been en- o"'itd 10 aoI
foT the holders IN tns matter my thcm-ciytH n.e'
12iI shares, and they claimed damages tor the GieI-
ece 30 per cent between the - per cent obtained bV
the defendants and 20 Ter cent, the highest price now
ararabe, alnouning TO ab0hl - V0O WHICH, win III
tercst, would now be more than r-o00l.
The defendants substantially cohceGe on inc u,hln
"W4 To- SoT -. s95 They claim they
desire 10 sell their ao.S al .hat llin,; n' IN ,g
strictly limited time oi all The interests tog thef; lhc
obtained control OF considerable amount al stock ahd
alter rho limit fixed los their agreement bought % 1000
shares from the estate OF Olyer ock at 30 or o. per
never that inc had an offer a. - per cent part cash and
part credit foi the stock The amount tbch hcd ao-
10 800 shares. more dian maiuriy ana ne ied-
ants declined to accept the offer the asfeenn NJ ana 1ho
safe. Testimony given on Tie trli that TINS Crr
was iur 81 800 shares only and included IN agreement
that SIX directors should and that over HcJoUo
,iioiu ~, III ,t r,founi,,icd 10 Them then
be free to continue separately III atrf
they mad been told tEat tcy ""U! not Jon the pam
tis could get majority OF Tie stock 50 As 10 maze me
sale. -, ,..---
TIE plaintiff. say that before this the defenanis were
~ ues ii4on Win Mr. POprHuhn7cn tor ihcr own IN
;erc,i an shat O. pIch.-'" i He ttf sI"tt' ana
nri .l,". con luct 10 the iiu ID obtain advantage
10 themselves TO-, keeping the pilh, r"W -rIhg tht
Stock ami liza, ia the irJu-acti'n ih dri'h'
1000, OF which $4,000 wr 80 the tAi"ii>e Oh 'e
Plaintiff
During the tri motion 90 ncn.ut was made on ire
ground that abe contract alleged hy tho li"'hllr va
against public policy AID yo.d The notion was over
ruled ~.
Judsa Curtis iu charging the jury yesterday, after
stating ire adi fri facts, id tEa me Only que "H ior
the alI5 wa Is iai N.a tlr verbal ~ ~ 'F. -
Is1Jt Was % lJ ei. e., Claimed py thc"clendhi, ""hH
- lW LAYS. OF Was ~ extend itHuiu- iEr urSO "t'hS
Under quests from counsel rc lrlt ma. ni'',n' were
l.rs; e., 'ur a Stockholders, and had inc night 10 MAKE
an, contract ttl couH h.ng ih,r Interests Oh a.I-
oni,n - Dsc 90 the aorAuirts. Ihis dt NOT, now
.,.g ~, ,luc a1 a-YtDurf ta sell cohlf"iii- Ihit.-
est III tir new directors wOu nc held to the Same uuty
10 IA. ID rciIri'..- 81, ttrI'-tlft'. .,.
~ iry v:. :t 90 a-.u iU scaled verdict TINS
morning .Joaa f. pir,0n, appeared Tor t'" Iih,is
( tarlos T. siace.n and Henry y Crtu Or the defend