The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-21
THE GREAT GAS CASE.

+, the United States Court, before Judge
pglngs and Jury, the case OF Atriil vs..
oglssiyy and Cassard was yesterday up on it's
..<eud days hearing. Ihe whole day was
<ensuned In skirmlshing on questions III evil
Jcuas. wherein the able lawyers on both sides
t.d To tar their skill and ingenuity 10 the ut
go The case may he thus coneisely stated
strilI the plaintiff, SUES defendants for $780,
~ damages occaslor.ed 10 him by notice
.vsfob defendants served ON the old gas com
any warning the latter not to transfer GER
tssn shares In said company, tO which de-
,sotiauts get Up claim by virtue Of their
<,doinal Ownership NJ 400 shares Of the
crescent City Gas Company, Of which Atfill
damned ~ he the sole owner at the time of
sbe consolidation of the two companies In
April, 1875.
In consequence Of this notice the old com
Many Indorsed the certificate OF 1850 shares
which the New Orleans Gas Company had
a9rsed to assign 10 the Crescent City Com
many; that said shares were subject to the
elalm 81 the defendants for their share pro
portionate ~ their 400 shares In the Crescent
CITY Gas Company. This Endorsement, It Il
charged, rendered the whole 1850 shares
claimed By Atrill nom negotiable, by clouding
the title. Hence the claim Of damages. De
ssndsnts deny the damage and reeonvene
AGAINST plaintiff by claiming Of him the value
ff their $50 shares In the Crescent City Gas
Company, of which they say they were de-
frauded through the fraud and maehina-
tons n AtrilI, who, they charge, had
introduced here, for the first time ON 50
large scale, the freeziDg-o process 20
familiar at The North. This process was
carried out, 1t ID alleged, by the surreptitous
scheme Of buying o majority Of the shares Of
The Crescent City Gas Company, creating q
new directory Of the tools and ferrsts Of
Atrill, and through them assessing the sub
stantlal and responsible stockholders 80 large
an amount as to freeze them out, compelling
them to sell their stock at insignificant RATES.
which was Immediately bought up by AtrilI.
who managed thus 10 absorb the whole stock
Of the company. Thus having got all the
stock In bis own hands, AtriG managed to
lnHmldate the old gas company into q
consolidation with the Crescent City Com
pany, by which he obtained for tbs
whole stock Of the latter, which cost
him less than $4,000, the splendid plum
Of A MILLION AsD A QUARTER or DOLLARS,
that being the value Of 1850 shares
allowed him In this consolidated company.
This the defendants charge was effected By
various tricks, deceits and Vaccinations.
They say that the assessments made upon
them were made by irresponsible tools Of
Atrill; that these assessments, made and
threatened, would have required them to pay
n frf. tta he ~ Ire
sponsibles; that the said directors had no de-
mand on them for such amounts, and had no
designs or purposes To invest the sum In
works or In expenditures to carry out the OBJ
iect Of the corporation, but were solely bent.
at the dictstion Of Atrill, In the fraudulent
absorption ri the whole stock, which they
finally accomplished: that whilst they we're
thus assessed and threatened with forfeiture
II they did not pay up, Atrlll was not com
PEELED to pay his assessments, but was elected
treasurer and financial manager Of the com
pany, in which capacity he pretended to hold
an amount In his hands suffl cient TO meet the
assessment on his thirteen Thousand shares
Of the company These are the allegations
OF the defendants, upon which large amount
Of testimony has been filed by both sides.
Upon these issues the case yesterday
reached the point Of closing the plaintiffs
case Several serious obstacles were encoun-
tered by the plaintiff In establishing bis dam
ages, and the rulings Of the judge greatly
narrowed the scope 81 bis demand Incident
ally there was a serious attack made upon
the validity Of the act Of consolidation 81 the
two gas companies, which very naturally
created no little confusion among parties in
terested therein. The defendants had just
opened their case when the hour OF adjourn
ment arrived. and It was continued over until
to-day.
In this case IT. J. Semmes and Charles Glib
son are attorneys for plaintiff, Singleton b
Brown and r. DeGray for defendants.