New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-19
THE COURTS.

Eur MUTUAL UNIONS FIGHT FOR LIFE.
V8YINa TO STOP TIE ArroRNkf-"hNhhAA0 INV
CErpINa AGAINST 1T.
Arrrment was had yesterday before Judge
800 IN the Superior Court, Chambers. on motion
- \, beb.lf of the Mutual Union Telegraph Com
h.nv for an order revoking the permission recently
s,ntea by Judge Truax to the Attorney General 10
Neein suit for the people against the company lor
revocation of ts charter. Robert sewe Asnoe Dieen
and Francis N Bangs appeared for the motion ana INC
Attorney General and Edward C. James In opposlUon'
The argument lasted the entire day ana was MOI co"
eluded on either side. The motion was paseo oh -.
papers used before the Attorney-Generai On 'i
application made 70 him for Jay Uouiu "Hu
william H. Cameron TO begin the sun ioi
.n revocation of the eompanys charter These papers
vasteduy were read and for the AttorneyGenera "ee
,caa afidayits by John II. Work and "lllia" 4"
Thomas Mr. Works affidavit was simply 10 sno" 'u'
tha Attorue General had given direcuohs ~ nav Wv
annlicatiop made TO Judge Truax The authority Vi u"
Attorney General for tns application IN MS name Id"
hocn denisd Mr. Tnomns was the stenographer al 'no
recent hearing before the Attorney-Genera On 'ne p
catinn MADE TO him Tor John c. Moore, president Oh
the Mutual Union Company, and A. GreaNes' 70 nav
q suit herun against the Western Union telegraph Con'
many Tor the revocation of its charter Ihon"7 ~ "
hard and Francis c. Barlow, OF New YORK. ana N''.e
Hale, of Albany, appeared as co"usel iVi -ra,
Moore and Mr. Gresves. Al that nearing
o. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT asked the counsel whether trgS
anuroyeA his decision In the Mutual Ihio, ~ ia moi
counsel all sad that they dia ap"fu o. it. Mr.
49, dIncrel the argument the Mutual Union In
pany he sad it sppS d ~ the Wes'ern Union Company
All OF Inc 10000 Mutual Union snai'g ,ra g O. ex.
Son-jt under the contract with John g, lo0re a - sc
ci 100 which lie had tfah5eI1J tronsferr@d
I sssocst- Russell SAGE. in order &c qutlliy ho 70
hr"me directors Although the sloch IN
STOOD IN ny f., UG jt and he therefore had
interest emitting blm 10 be Ie'uoI III , az The
, tSa me capal had been increased 10 SIOOoVuuO'
on pre sulnably with knowledge OF w It't' i.
~ Coue Mir sawell then argued mat even IL tAe
SnTp,py mad been guiiy OF techhcd N'o"'ion Va -,
~ comfy 10 permit or refuse an AZ
lion 10 forfeit tue CHARTER as u.o WIZ
mr. IN e. ere SIM is dscreic ion woul al"a iooh q
tne motives tie rcltiOrs VI D"iiu '''.sV' -,
p asI wanted 40 destroy lis ryd. AL NJ. G0uio
and Nh Cnncron'- relations win me M",u" mon "
,rs having known Of tAe facts Of which they nov
complain - long ume' were gun! g" "a r1 al
w. stapprd from Gskicg the assistance ca cU'I' Va
',;.v 4 e e1i.trnce Of the .dutual Union CohpaIl
tu!; viiel i,ngrlice TO the public. IL alone STOOD
hs,>,r.u the pubic and Jue gigantic Ntst III OHl"t
Cmnfv " ncl was btrYlug % complete J. p hOb"p's oi
CYi1PaNS 'cs%s of tc!erraglic communication Ia the
o. siuec unauthorized ACT 10y the dlec ors OF
ratiou Was not enough 20 cause forfeiture ga rs
Iner Inst b. tnlional gdoug Of such
C "a ~, affe,f the general public interests. inc
increase OF the capital STOCK had bcch mae va
csrnt o. ali the stockholders and hal neither ny I'ed
TIE ,n,ic in general any person IA pdItcuhI-
wa an act watch not even a lech"ca .i'4a ~" Va
ifs charter powers. MI SeWell, IN cO;!usl'u' NAM
,sneo th a the permission gwen by Judge liuGA 10 te
Atforne, q entr8i 10 bIng the sus was hV' N"iI'
because tne application for II had non pee. ulIue
he th Attorney Ger srdl in person, and he cted the re
cent e sOn Of justice Lawrence, Ia Tue supreme
20 effect that Tue ATTORNEY -"eAoA' 10" '' ''
AtiorSsy. General Russell replied 10 Mr. sewelL 70
sand thai the COuri mad no Ju1sd ctloh IA tHe cSst.
$50, - a., Il c,ott TO have ole Judge review anu
correct the action Of anOJner JGdSeho Upon PeeSoh
OF legal right 1ut OF JUDICIAL ,ioh '
sell sd ne synpathized with r SeWe III his ueSre 10
have Telegraph COMPANY IL eXistenee ~ rom "1p
a MONOPOLY. However, TIE MUTUAL MON OOs'-
hSIy yuu,cW for carrying on tins noble work The com
many had been not merely on tue GROUND lHat
fraud altogether. The company mad not 0eIthdeo u'
suit TO establish it, innocence bat hSd eupOyed lAe
from being brought IL al. me company lhstt 40 OF
putting III answer t. the complaint 50 tha we caSe
invi be tired ana determined on the law ana the lhCts
had applied Judge 10 say that the uHcrttiou OK
crcised by another had Dern npprovlaenuy eAeF
apo.rther unusihail,. Wat were the motives whicu
Lac induce !eS STsG 90 20 1t had Been dos
Tor ihe purpose OF giving the enlre capital STOCK 70
MoOre a co. nothing. When the STOCK hId bc,n IN
creased only existence wIic1 tn, eoupAhy n@u co.,
sisted AN nded'ed OF SlVoCOVJ. lHs va Hot d
technical violation o. statutory provision on 'uc luis
taken advice OF counsel as htd Dec asser ca . W.' =
deliberate wrong 1t was AN lhuauoh Oi e'ocA luaIou
IN the worst possible way. , ,. ., ,.
Judge Arnoux here asked the Attorney-Generai
whether lie was To he uh"efs'ooG Nc ih,4uH ID. Al
illegal issue OF ground Of forfeiture O. cor
porate guts. Inc Attorney -GeueG replied ID Tie al
hrMAtiVe.
Mr. saugs-DO you Intend, then, 10 grant an apphca-
lion tor a suit against the Western Union Company Tor
n forfeiture Of It's charter
The Attorney General do not expect that am 10 DC
taken as speaking hee in the cdpacl'y OF aJhdGe' am
sclug upy as an advocate. HOWeve.. since tie ques-
Lou Las been put viii say that # SHALL be convinced
ha, the legged illegal issue OF s'ocA 10y the Western
riou Company /. of the character a. the ILL gal
issue OF stock by the Mutual Union Company, small
certainly grant pei iliss. Oh to bring The suit
Inc Acknowledgement rel, Tred L. the conduct OF
loan e. sioOre. Tribunal Ter one pa pose
rted one tIu.. and in another tribunal Tor aEOtACI
pur.u = asserted exactly the opposite Ihe arg iLeu
will be continued tomorrow afternoon.