New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-07-02
THE COURTS.
SUING THE ELEVATED ROADS.

! A sTOCKHoLDER DISSATISFIED WITH HIS DIVIDENDS.
The suit of Stephen V. Hardness, in mis- own
behalf OF 500 Of tho New York Elevated
Railroad, ana for such other stockholders Day unite
with him. against tho NewYork Elevated Railroad Com.
pany and tho Manhattan Railway Company was tried
yesterday before Justice Ingraham 10 the Superior Court
Special Term. Tue plaintiff demands that the New.
York Company be directed to collect and the Ma1haan
Company ordered 10 pay dividends claimed to dc due
since APRIL 1881 to tho stockholders Of tho former and
that the defendants be enoined from doing anything
preudcla - rights OF tho plaintiff and especially
from entering into the agreement between them
He forth that the Manhattan Company October
1879 guaranteed 10 cent the ca pitsi stock Of
the New-York Company TO the amount
Of S6,5ooo00 for nnety-nine years; that the
net earnings of the New-York Company from
February l. 1879 to April 80. 1884, have been NJ the
OF 12.35 cent per and that from Febru-
ary. $50, to March 81 ss4. the amount received By
the Manhattan account OF the earnings OF vhe New
York Company. over all interest bonds aud diy'
dends. Sl,97l4s7 o. The plaintiff personally
claims 81 $50 with interest for each quarter from July
l. 1881, the beginning OF this action. July; %.
1884
Tho complaint sets forth that since April 2. 1881.
when the defendants paid the plaitf 81 900 10 per
his 500 shares, dividends have been paid 10
him. He charges that Jay Gould. president and director
in both companies, and d. W. McWiams, secretary and
treasurer, and Cyrus Field Russell Sage. n. slaway
Sloan, John II. Hall, W. +. Connor George Scott.
j. +. de Navarro and II. r. DmOcK directors Of both
companies, have fraduently conspired TO make new |
agreement between the two companies by which they
propose make new lease OF the New York road for
999 by the terms OF which only cent year
shall be paid TO the stockholders of the NewYork Com
pany thus deprecaling the value OF their stock to In
value OF tho Manhstt stock which these
than they do OF the stock of the other
company. He also charges that hog propose TO merge
the stocks lower tho grade OF stock OF the
New.York Company. He declares that the latter con-
psny valid claim against the Manhattan Tor per
balance
the NcwY Company FROM July l. 1881. amounting
about $7s0.0O0. which these directors. in vfo alton
OF their trust and for their personal interest.
propose settle for about $4,000. He
says the New.York Company refuses to pay any divli
deuQs unless its stockholders surrender thor stock or
consent the proposed change The answer Is general
denial and statement that the compl aimed
of bel the companies nave been duly ratified
and have been sustained actions In the supreme and
Superior Courts.
EI-Judgo William II. Armour and Edward b Cowles
appeared for the plaintiff and Julien I. Davies and
Charles A. Gardiner for the defendants After copies OF
the agreements ana other documentary evidence
had been submitted Mr. Davies ASKED that the complaint
dismissed arguing that thore proof OF fraulu.
lent intent In the fact that the officers
Of the two companies Mr. Cowles insisted that on tho
evidence Judgment should be given for the plaintiff.
Justice ngraham reserved his decision. giving tue at
tOrneys until July Is to present their briefs