New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-12-16
THE JERSEY CENTRAL LEASE.
THE READINGS ANSWER TO ANOTHER BILL oil
COMPLAINT.


| THE READINGS ANSWER TO ANOTHER BILL OF
COMPLAINT.
| TRENTON, n. j., Dec. 15.-COunsel for the
Philadelphia and Reading and New-Jersey Central Rail-
road companies filed to-day in the Court OF Chancery the
of those companies to the bill OF complaint hed
by Alfred Mills and John II. Ldgerwood, surviving e1-
ecutOrs OF Stephen VAIL deceased, who pray that the
lease of the NewJersey Central to the Reading be de-
carcd null and void by the Chancellor This is an en-
trely separate suit from the Dnsmore Stephen Vail
died his home In Morrstown in 1894 leaving as part
OF his estate 1000 shares OF Central stock In his
will he directed that the income from the Central stock
applied to certain specified purposes The bill prays
that the lease be set aside as illegal, ineqtaDe ana
ruinous TO the interests OF the pany After admit
ting the allegations OF the bill to Wallis ownership OF
stock and his WILL and the I'm which the Cen
trail Company formed and its capital stock increased
from time to time by authority OF the Legislature the an
asserts that II Is true that the moneys invested In
capital stock OF the company had been for some years
prior to 1877 profitable in the way Of dividends declared
and paid but such dividends proved to be far beyond
anything that the profits of the companys business tust
fed, and with other improbable expenditures i'm
poyershed and embarrassed the company that 1t became
insoven and Francis s. Lathrop appointed receiver
and aerward Henry S. Little When LathrOp was aI-
pointed receiver the funded debt upward OF
S2S,000000 aud its floating debt upward of 100000
and when Little appointed receiver the funded debt
$35, 100000 and the floating debt was upward Of
S3,OO0,OO0 And the receiver obliged during the
year to carry floating debt OF upward Of 81 100000 in
order to keep the roads running
The further asserts that the New-Jersey Cen
trail Railroads. property of great value, but there
mode in which it could be made available for the
settlement Of its debts and the production OF income
for shareholders except through the intervention Of
corporation whose interest II might he lease the
property terms commensurate with It's value TO them
Even II the company had Deen able To resume Its
business without the aid and corporation of the Reading
Company there reasonable prospect OF its earn
ing anOdeate dividend for years, but there
mode OF terminating the reCcyer-hip and rein
stating the company In the possession OF its property
other than making the lease to the Reading Company.
The answer denies that the Central stock ever
profitable investment to its original holders, and de-
scribes the vicssitudes OF the company until 1t
cmmbed In 1877 and abandoned insOlvent
poratOn Ii denies that there possibility OF the
cOmpany's earning 10 per cent. The defendants also
deny that act thing complained OF does take de-
sroy endanger or In anywse inure the property or the
Central Railroad, or lessen Its value prOducveness
alleged bnt they aege that the acts and things OF which
complaint Is made protect and preserve the trust prop
ery from depreciation and greatly enhance its prOduc
tveness to the stOckhOlder ALI that the cOmplanants
claim is the value OF the oOck they represent and
their damages taking a rule rules for ascertainng
the former the present market value and for the damages
stock In the future The defendants offer to make this
compensation If 1t shall appear that the complanants
have any standing In court TIE rest OF the answer Is
denial OF charges that the Reading road has been mis-
managed and statement that Miles knew about the pro-
posed lease before IL was made.