Morning journal and courier., 1883-05-26

0f0u-Th0 T0sBAmOhy AAA IA AZ Au
ments Commenced -Another ADJOURN
meot.
The third day of the hearing in regard to
ford and Harlem railroad was resumed in
the bar library room yesterday morning at IL
O'Clock. The usual array of lawyers were
present. Mr.. Baldwin submitted paper in
support of the testimony given at the previ-
GUS hearing by Lewis M. Brown, director
of the Hartford and Harlem road, that he
had authority to fill in at his discretion the
names of certain directors in the company's
articles of association.
Mr.. hyde objected and said that the ques
ton at issue was whether the mode of choos-
ing the directors of the new road was legal.
If not, the road had no legal existence. The
paper submitted was dated April IA, 1888,
about three months after the articles of as
ISOLATION had been filed and it could not be
offered to make valid an organization that
was not valid when the association papers
had been filed. Mr.. Hamilton spoke in a
similar vein.
Mr.. Baldwin, in reply, quoted ruling by
Judge Beardsley to show that it was proper
to introduce ratification measure similar to
that proposed. Furthermore, the question
now is not whether tho new road was legally
organized December 80 last, but whether it
| is now legally organized.
Mr.. Hyde showed, he claimed, that the
| Judge Beardsley decision did not apply ex-
actly to this case. The speaker held that the
road must have been legally made at the
| time the articles of association were filed
Did the subscribers give one man Mr.
BROWN power to select directors at the time
4 - hoo cd n1s
| was that power only given last month, three
| months after the time directors we're chosen?
1 The paper offered could not be used for
| ratification purposes.
| Mr.. Hamilton said that if the paper was
| needed to ratify action taken three months
| before the time it was drawn up, then the
Hartford and Harlem road had no Legal ex-
| istence at the time men drove stakes on the
| land of the property owners of New Haven
represented by Mr.. Hamilton, and held,
| therefore, that if he chose to he could sue
the whole gang of EN-"
The commissioners decided to allow Mr..
Baldwin to present the paper. In substance
| it recited that at the organization of the
Hartford and Harlem road, December 30,
1882, Lewis NJ. Brown having filled in the
names of certain directors, said action was on
April IA, 1888, duly ratified and approved by
the parties in interest.
Mr.. Baldwin then began to question Mr..
500 paid in at the time of the organization of
| the new road was money belonging to the
witness and Charles G. Franklyn and was in
tended to apply to the subscriptions of both
| men to the stock of the road.
To Mr.. Hyde the witness said that of the
$21, 800 the sum of SIT, 500 was applied to
Mr. Franklyn's subscription and 81, 900 went
to Mr.. Browns account. The money was
paid to three directors-Messrs. Day, Lewis
and Brown. No receipts were given. The
$21, 500 together with Lee, Higginson & Co. s
| draft subscription of 1921, 500-in all $40, 900,
was deposited in the National New Haven
bank and about 800, 900 of it still remained
or the thirty one names signed to the com
panys articles of association-the first three
Messrs. Franklyn, Brown and Bald win
were signed on December % last in New
Haven. On December 26 the witness re-
ceived the articles by mail at his Office in
New York, and then there were in all four
teen subscribers, nearly all New Haveners.
The next day the witness took the articles to
Lee, Higginson & Co.'s Office in Boston and
thirteen more signatures were secured.
Another subscribers name was signed De-
cember %, and December 90 the rs-
mainder. After getting most of the sub
scribers, at the time they signed the articles,
to sign power of attorney, the witness ar
ranged for the December 90 organization
meeting at Mr.. Baldwin's Office in New
Haven. Notice of the same was sent to the
Boston subscribers, particularly Frank Hig-
ginson and Charles Whittier, who, it had
been agreed, were to become directors of the
new road
After the noon recess Mr.. Brown, to
question by Mr.. Doolittle, said that in the
latter part of April the road had $43, 900
subscribed, left in the bank in this city.
Schuyler S. Bartlett, of Boston, was next
called by Mr.. Baldwin. He testified that he
was connected with the Boston firm of Lee,
II e. N or16 ATaIxJ Eyod f1r-
Their concerning three powers of attorneys
which he identified. Andrew Bryson testi-
fed that he had been civil engineer about
fourteen years. The custom in making pre-
iminary surveys for a new railroad was to
first run lines as near the true ground as pos
sible, taking Typographical notes and putting
the same on the map and then projecting
such a line as is commonly called the loca-
ticn. This was done in the case of the Hart
ford and Harlem road.
To Mr. Hyde the engineer said that he had
never made survey for railroad under the
present law of Connecticut.
j. G. Rawn, Thomas Bishop and Foster
Morse civil engineers, gave testimony con-
corning preliminary or trial lines similar to
that of Mr.. Bryson.
The arguments were commenced at 2:30.
S. E. Baldwin addressed the commissioners
in support of the legality of the organization
of the road. He referred to the legality of
criticism about the maps and the profiles
were trivial. He then quoted from numer-
GUS authorities touching the matter OF capital
stock, etc. Mr. Baldwin in conclusion read
finding which he presumed" the commits
sioners. would sign which declared that the
Hartford and Harlem railroad was legally Or
ganizsd nnder the laws of the State of Con-
necticut.
Mr.. Hamilton followed in behalf of the
property owners in reply to Mr.. Baldwin.
He claimed first that the company was
not legally organized and second that
the taking of property as proposed
by this company was illegal unless it could be
shown that the taking of the property was
necessary for public convenience and travel.
He then went on to say, with reference to
the non compliance with the law, that they
had not complied with the law in regard to
subscriptions. He said that of the 81 ,OO6,-
100 subscribed there should have been ten |
there was only $43, 200 paid in. He said the |
Law was plain that ten per cent. of the sub |
scription made must be paid in, and quoted |
from the statute law in support of this Con-
tinuing MIR. Hamilton claimed that there had |
never been any legal election OF directors. If |
there ever was attempt to an election of |
directors they were elected in lump, there |
never being any separate election as
required by law. He read from the |
authorities 10 support of his claim. Again /
Mr.. Hamilton claimed that an actual /
survey had not been made in compliance with |
the law. He said the survey must show the /
actual structure of the road bed where the /
rails are to be laid; this had not been done.
In conclusion he asked for the property own
ers of New Haven whose property would be
utterly and totally destroyed by the layout,
that strict construction be put upon this
law by the commissioners
At 500 Commissioner Woodruff said that
it would be necessary to adjourn, as he had
to go to Litchfield. It was then agreed that
the closing arguments should be made on
Thursday, June 18th, commencing at 10 a. M