New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-19
THE COURTS.
THE BENEDICT SUIT DISMISSED
JUDGE VAN BRUNl'5 DECISION coScpRx,.,
TELEGRAPH POOL "a

NNDN@ 20" DAfc-N' - DAsSAciDN iDNtEkNIsf. rrrr,
TELEGRAPH POOL. "H
Elias c. Benedict, as a stOckholder ~ a.
Western Union Telegraph Company, brought s,,s !,
set aside the pooling arrangement with the Alsnl 80
Pacific II was tried before Judge Van Bum, 4, 81,
preme Court Special Term, about six week. 49, M,
plaintiff claimed that the pooling rangement M. =,
furious Co the Western Union Company thatit vss -
red out without due notice to the stockholder, va,
against public policy and beyond the powor ~ ,1
company. Judge Van Brunt. in very elaborate o..
Ion, has dismissed tho complaint FN
He reCites at length the proceedings under which IN
pooling arrangement made. giving S7i9 per cent -
the receipts to tho Western Union and 1919 per cent ~
the other company. He finds that more than 32Oo6S
resented at the stockholders meeting which unsbi
mously accepted the pooling arrangement OF
by the Western Union and 13iSl,ooo per Cent
by the Atlantic and Pacific he nnds inrtber, that IN
consequence OF this arrangement the Atlantic and Pa
e1o Company has closed number OF competing ofaees
and has cOnnecteds lines with the other companYsof
fees largely decreasing its own receipts ana increasing
those Of the Western Union. and thereby increasing NE
amount 70 Dc paid UNDER Tue agreeet ~ tne latter 70
Union has been able TO increase It's rates 20 pay
of bdtb eompanes the pafntif was the owner of 16S
shares OF Western Union Stock and Judge Van Bmut
says In the bringing OF this action the plaintiff h.
stockholders OF corporation, preiering at his e.
pense TO enforce the provisions of law rather than hay
his property increased In value by their violation"
Judge Van Brunt reviews atlength the laws regulating
telegraph companies beginning with the act OF 1913 and
ending with the act VI 1870, and deduction from
them, SAYS; "Wbat arrangements two telegraph com.
panles could make In reference 20 the conduct their
business which would not be protected R1d come within
the scope meaning OF the foregoing acts, totally
loss 10 imagine They may cOnsodatei they may con
struet and lines OF telegraph not mentioned
in their original certificate OF lneOrporaOn they may
Jointly construct lease, use such ines they nav
lease sell or buy telegraph property rights privileges
and franchises, any interest therein or any part
thereof paying, receiving in payment therefor, stock
money property. It would seem 70 have been tue
intention the Legislature give 10 telegraph con-
panies the power make any and all arrangements f0t
the conduct OF their business either Jointly separately
which natural persons could possibly enter into"
1t Il, therefore, difficult" the Judge con-
tinues, ITO say that any arrangement between
the two companies Is beyond their powers II
from the acts be fails TO see that the consolidation o
Offices where there not enough business Tor two
against public policy, or ultra wires. Possibly without
the statutory authorizations, the abolition OF competition
might be thought TO be against public policy, but such
action cOuuteDanced by the Legislature. The arrange
does not however come within the act Of 1870.
a." The evident intention OF the Legislature being 10
give TO telegraph companies such large aud ample
powers, and arrang cement which they may make 70
prevent competition which would be ruinous % each
being against public policy, there nothing the
ton OF The defendants, sucn action being mauesty
for the interest Of all persons concerned which calls for
the intervention OF the Court The majority Of the stock
holders being large favor of the action Of the de-
fendans the Court should not interfere at the instance
the holder Of 100 shares out OF 10000 unless clear
made out for such Intervention. think, there
fore action Of the defendant the Western Union
Telegraph Company ultra wires, neither Is
therefore, be dismissed with costs"