New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-14
THE JERSEY CENTRAL ELECTION.

The application of the GOwen interest for an
order OF the NewJersey Court OF Chancery directing
election of directors OF the Central Railroad OF New
Jersey was argued yesterday before Chancellor Runyon
at Newark Ex-Governor BedIe, \. G.. Richey, of New
Jersey and James Il. GOwen, of Philadelphia, appeared
for the owen interest; Thomas y. McCarter or New
ark for various stockholders. and eXChancelor VIII
hanson for the Central Railroad directors. Mr.. Rchey
asked the Chancellor in behalf OF L, C. Knight OF Pna-
delpha, TO make order for the election He read the
supplemental petition and said tina; lad been
by the directors. IL stated that in last January Mr.
Ravens Of the directors, had filed paper with the
court setting forth that the road solvent and AK
ing that the stockholders and directors
Mr. Ravens had since changed his mind and now op-
posed an election The receiver should have board Of
directors to confer with who present the stockholders
The af-rs OF the company suffering for this very
thing.
Mr.. williamson remarked ne present without in
strucons and was willing accept any order that the
Chancellor might make. Ar. Gowen said he thought
that the injunction did suspend the power OF the
poratiOn TO keep Itself alive. THE law
recognized the necessity OF having board
Of directors for this purpose. The corporation had
debts due outside the state. The authority Of the re-
cever would not be recognized outside the state, and 1t
was necessary board OF directors To protect
the rights the stockholders elsewhere Tie question
was low the rights and wishes OF the stockholders
to be expressed ANY action OF the directors to prevent
the stockholders from getting possession Of the road was
species of At the very crisis OF this
company the directors insisted retaining their posi-
tons in order that they mgat make contracts 70 bind
the company for years come. The board Of drec tors
had recognized that their duty to hold an election
They had discretionary power in the matter lie had
seen it stated that the very gentlemen who had applied
for and obtained the pcrnissyc order for an election
now claimed that the Chancellor had no power 70 order
An election This meant that the directors were TO be
continued In Office long they chose to remain by
obstructng in every way the attempt Of the stockhod
ers TO get control OF the road II more than Elk
wears since the stockholders had had chance TO express
their will by an election. large majority OF the stock
holders were prepared Assert their rights, ana tnat as
sprfiou would be accordance with the wishes OF
the preseut board Mr.. GOwen claimed 10 represen Mt
rom % 600 TO 100000 OF stock out OF the total
OF lG2 600 shares or the company. . -
Mr. McCarter insisted that the stockholders repre-
seuqd by hun did oppose election or directors Dut
counsel had instructed that such an election would
he Illegal Alter the Chancellor had removed the Junc-
lion the should apply to the Supreme court
Ia order an election; but while the road was Ia the
hands OF the court directors had no power 10 act
FX-C;overuor Bedle argued In the same strain as MI
Gowen AID suggested that the Chancellor order an elec-
inspectors, OF whom rhOuld DC
a master To conduct the election fairy NOW that the
couauv was prosperous the stockholders 10 nave
a. matter OF Justice and equity, voice In the manage
meut of the road They have the right 10 say Whethci
the old directors should continued III once or ne"
BOARD elected by the stockholders the actual oWLeS
The Chancellor reserved his decision and said be would
give it a. the earliest practicable day