New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-02
ment and trust and asto the object and purposes thereof

the parties 80 to the action heretofore named;
the sole object Of the rn,d R1rc66s s%D,uy 3,
capital stock and bonds by the planilis was ta
majority OF the stock should be placed in trust 70 Dc
a, 20 h owners II was understood and in
tended that the Western Union Telegraph oomIp ,
linton COMPANY represented by large portion OF tho
majority in question and aferwar Win me H wo
Union Company, the Western Unior did tecome the
of interest represented by more tnan SeV
more than three-tenths of the entire canltsi
stock OF the Mutual Union Company. imJso
Gates issued in the name of Jay Could and are held SUI
feet to the agreement as 70 the trust Inc Irron
Western Union Companys interest In The mutual .rO
is alleged 10 depend upon the performance OF the %
of the agreement In the matter OF the tIs ty,stees
without Which the property ana Gnony would
or value land the Western Union COh onSs bnt for
the existence OF the , agreeme"' Of its
a reliance upon the performances FINANCE
of the suits brought by Rabbit and Cameron ~ the suit
Mutual Union Company ana the s dafendants other
than the Central Trust COMPANY wond noo aectued
ceived any OF the many dement's he discontinuence
ana snspeusion but would saveraly nave Den have
70 neay d nv the performance by the planis OF tne
ter g,s of the agreement in that REGARD Ease
Least "a fhe discontinuauce or SUSPENSION as t ,+p
% % the several suits ia concerned, no stutape
and sufficient compensation can now DC M ~ suh
dSadvantaees TO which the plaintiffs have been sun
t1 and that the advantages which have accrued TO
y6e Seiendants other than the Central Trust Compa
of NeS-York cannot now be estllnalea, 1l III i.,T
counting to had be paid for IN money 70 Ine @ he
Jointly seyeray and the delehuhn.s .e a. heing
deprived of the enjoyment OF tue sdVaDaEes II uoiS
now impossible 10 place several parties 10 TINS ae0n
(other than the Central Trust Company Vi NeH 49,
again I'm the relation when they sust9hou 70 eoi - a.
with regard to the matters mentioned or reelreu 10 III
the suits respectively, in which the sever'. parties b
at the time of such continuance OF suopensiOn. -
plaintiffs have and each OF them has performed eaeh
every obligation upon them, or elther or eIein, he
BY the agreement, and now are auu alW uo o,nor
ready and willing, aud make offer to maze oIher
and further and fuller performance 81 any o. .9e nv
cations whatever, whenever eIlalea % or Ieonest
any person entitled to make such demand OF
The ffth paragraph alleges tsan one pTe within
iust become aware that tine defendants tNe tn ~
Few days in the absence OF Jay Gould rom INC Va
New-York. entered INTO c3n7P5hcy any tbe Toit1fs
with each other IN fraud OF the rgn1s ot o 800 ~ me
and in violation OF their interests unur tle W 40
trust the purpose and eneet Oh lcn, iisb
be performed are TO thwart ana utIedu tlo ,, o.
ment OF the purposes ana oUects O tne pa,te ond
rangement and agreement 10 when inc pHn,ns AM nf
Sew-York were par les 1t alleges that undrr me
terms of the conspiracy II mas Desn ON Conn,ny
GDcnainS so mucn of the stock heretofore placed IN
trust under the previO1s agreement 10 De conIoeu
Gould and Baker trustees otheI 'Lan nc so be
bnres now standing in the name OF Jay GOuul sha D
tran sferred to Baker, Baou and Poter as ~.
rcd ~ i've years 10 be voted and controlled lOr
thar Deriod by those trustees IN ther ulscrtloh O
with The distinct purposes and objects OF te
provisions or the previous aSIoeuIeI' " , thos.
impairing the value OF the interest," ONheu ny 'caI
plaintiffs in the Mutual Union company, h hh1
- on Incident 10 the accomplishment OF the chlef
object of enabling Baker. BallOu ana FOter 10 uyPotn
majority OF the STOCK TOT pOoo VA
$500 Old exnending II for purposes opposed to the i'll
eCess % the baintf aud Of frauduleDy entering into
sr,ons disadyantage and injury of the plaintiffs And
Tho nantfs say they are informed that the DEFENDANTS
Parer Raifon and Potter, OF the Identical shares
stock, other than such as nave o, eh ~ ~
ov could which IL w3s agreed to be controlled Dy
Cord and Baker as trustees and tha the certificates
of stock are to be deposited with the central trust OO
many which in exchange is to issue certificates III nego
fiae form representing what Is described as tne et-
able interest Of the several persons VINO snaa Hane
The nraver of the complaint is for Judgment as i0Hows
FrSt-Tnat George +. Baker be removed Iol h i
the agreement first mentioned and That successor IN
that trust be appointed by the court TO carry out tue
'' Sesond|That in the meantime and until another
trustee shall be appointed. receiver ne apPolnIea oy
the cOurt 10 take charge of the interests aud property
placed in tn at ne disposition OF jay OOulu anu
George f. Baker as trustees -. ...,
and officers severaly enoined and restrained from
any attempt do anything whatsoever IN Oh
the conspiracy ente ed into by the defendants with me
purpose or object of thwartng or deeating the
operation, effect or purpose II the agreement: py anu
under the terms OF which Jay GOuIu anu "eOis0 -
Baker were appointed trustees
THE AFFGDAvITs
Burton n Harrison filed the complaint as attorney
and in support of it he also fled the following ahda-
Wits:
CRY AND COUNTY }ss
TaT oujd bene duly sworn on oath depositeh and
satin that Re Is one of the plaintiff In
fSe above entitled suit and that he
concfed the negotiations which led to the making Of
fhe contract set out in the complaint with JOhn g.
Moore Co., the one part ana lhs depohehI ioi ul
f and associates on the other that the negotiations
thut led to the said contract were largely had Oy me u
moment with the defendant Barker; tbat IN MAKING the
laid Contract the said Moore Co. acted or purported
TO act for only themselves but LOT tne ueGnuhl
Baker FahnestOck BallOu, Scott ana other houers Oh
stock in the Mutual Union telegraph COnpany that he
agreement has been fully consunmated on the par OF
for the said and bonds therein mentioned and re
ferred to been fully paid, aud the said sult NAMED
therein have been dismissed that at the time of1be pr-
chase of the said stock IT was un-sued Out cahed y
the said Moore & Co. for themselves ana associates
Including the said Baker, FahnestOck BaOu ana scott,
whose respective interests therein as deponent under
stood had never been divided as between themselves
aud dDoDeut purchased three-fths thereof amounting
TO 600 that an issue OF the sad STOCK was AT
the time restrained by an injunction IN what Is known
"a the Cameron aud Babbtt suits, being two OF the suits
mentioned in the said contract ana IN consequence Oh
the aforesaid agreement the said suits were dseon,
timed and issued; that IN pursuance OF
the said agreement and IN execution ana
thereof the said 10000 shares OF STOCK were lsued
the Mutual Union Company 10 the SAID GOuld ana
Baker in trust their property as trustees undtr the
said agreement that the said stock was so Issued ana
ths depopent and the said Ba accepted the said trust
and have since regardedand treated the sAd STOCK
property under the said contract hat Ior con-
said Baker 500 of the said shares were transferred TO
the depOnent as such trustee and at the sad BAKER
request and carry said agreement 100 shares we're
transferred George Could and 100 shares 10 Russell
Sage III order TO qualify then 70 serve as directors IA tH
Mutual Union Company; that the residue OF the SAID
stock was 10 and held by the said Baker under
sSe aG areement as trustee as aforesaid; that
econ and contamination of the said contract the said
John c. Moore Co.. acting for the said Baker, fahne-
stock Raou scott aud others and their associates TO
this deponent unknown delivered Aforesaid 10 this
depOnent 80 600 shares OF Mutual Union stock; that
since that time said Baker both himself and
representing the other individual defendants herein
stockholders aforesaid in the Mutual Union Telegraph
Company has recognized the said contract being 10
force and the stock being held by the said Baker
under the trust and provisions therein contained ana
this deponen and the said Baker have had several
ereu touching the sale and disposition thereof.
Deponent further saith that under the said contract
the said Moore Co., for themselves and their
ciaes including the said Baker Fahnestock. BallOu,
Scott and others, have received from the plaintiffs
large Of money TO wit, 1927, 900 thereabouts
and received divers other valuable considerations in the
dismissal the said suits mentioned the SAID con-
tract; that depOnent is informed and believes that
said Moore & Co. and their associates, including the