The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-04
The Chesapeake and Oh,O Canal.
THE MOTION FOR TIE APPOINTMENT OF 4 RE
CEIYER DENIED.

CElyER DENIED.
BALTIMORE, Mp, January 3.-Immc-
diatcly after The reading q tie decision in
the Puimln paac car ease to-day Jadgc
Morris read The opinion 81 The court in the
ease of -. Il. Stewart, IN English >uDiCc',
formerly Of Richmond, Va, and a prefer
red bOodhOldcr. ggoIusi the president and
directors Il thc ChcSaUcakp and OhIp Ca
mai Company, praying lhat the defendants
be cr Joined from auy further control and
MANAGEMENT OF the cjn,l and asking the
appointment Of q receiver 10 take possess
sion OF, manage, ana 81 Cratcit
The opinion reviews al considerable
length The legislation Il the state In rcyard
20 the canal, is management by tie pre>i-
dent and directors, the various allegations
aS charged in the compliments bill, and
says that " the allegations oil mi>mlnage-
mcut arc tot established by Che proof. Only
one bOndhJider beside, the complainant,
and be holding bu: q mali amount OF bonds,
has united IN he suit. 1t j. but a very
snail minority Of The bOndhOldeiS who are
asking for The relief prayed for in the bill,
and il does not appear that any Others be.
ieyc that The remedy now sought would
be beneficial 10 their interests, and
The trustees Of the mortgage, who are
in no way connected with or commit
ted TO the present Management, and Wbo
are IL individuals gamers Of cons iderIblc
amounts Of bonds, are here IN court >tTenu-
OuSly opposing the pre>en application. In
regard TO the charges Of miSaDprOprlati0n
Of the income OF the canal by the president
and directors the Court says that Of the cX-
peuditures for out 1T locks above George.
town, u. c.. and the wharf property at
Cumbci land, the complainant bad Iui no.
tIcc Of Che intention Of the corporation 20
acquire these terminal facilities, and the
reasons for so doing, and il does not seem
that BE- eau now be beard u say with any
force that they were Il violation OF bis rights
under The mortgage. The construction OF
the telephone along the line Of tue canal
was reasonable expenditure ana dllect
beneG'. The Court, how, yer, says that the
proof fully >uStalns the change OF ml>lp-
preparation OF income ~ eXtlaYa%Int hotel
bills incurred by the president and direct
ors and charged by them 10 the corporation
without warrant or authority. such con-
duet in The managers OF m inSOlNcnt cOrp0-
ration is well calculated 10 excite suspicion
and diStru>t WITH regard TO The fidelity OF
their general management Of IL concerns;
but, While it is true That these things tend
to excite diSirusl, they do not actually
prove anything themselves, and are not in
lhens ives sufficient to Justify The costly
machinery Of IccclycI>hip. II seems
to Us. however, thai tie bondnoldcrs should
be afforded some convenient method OF
>crutnlzng tie EXPENDITURES which so Vi
tally affect them and them alone. We TANK
that without appointing receiver II would
hc within the power ii thl> court 10 le'aIn
the Dill for the purpose Il having the corr
poratIon at stat/d intervals render an ac.
count OF lis receipts and disbursements Ter
the information and protection OF bond
holders. The motion fUr receiver l. &C.
MED"