New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-08-09
THE COURTS.
srrTTs AGAINST THE SUGAR TRUST


PROCEEDINGS BEGUN IN THE SUPREME 'o0"-
vrsTERDAY~-PoINTs IN THE COMPLAINTS
Proceedings against the Sugar Rehneries COMPANY, -.
bohalf Of tho state OF Newly ork, were Desuh ''
A.. IN tbe suuremo Court by the service Oh su"i'uo
IN s,nt for the dissolution Of that corporalioh' VIZ"
=, hctt,r known AZ The sugar Trust Inc p'opA'
arc rcpreseped by AttOrney-Genera Chafios L,
bor and General Roger A. Pryor inc ooio"
named ia tho SUMMONS as composing 'Ho ~
Henry O. Hayemeyer, i. o. Ma'thleS'h' 'o'"
s,,rlos tr .JuIlus A. sternsburg, Theodore A. have
never John Jurgcnsen, John T. Parsons 0hair'9 -
eenF william DICK, Joseph 3. Thomas anu cHN,o
o. Foster The complaint sets ior'h 'h'" 'io
PENDANTS have for the last six months osrrieu ."
.,es AZ q corporation have used the corporate
name Of The sugar Refneries Company" nave IS
sneI certificates Of stock, and have usurped the PRIV
lagos Of corporate body without having pee" LIZ
corporatcd according to law, and 10 the oah"' "a ao
n,onle The complaint asks that the defendants 10
not allowed to act corporation ana th@' 'ho 'o''7
Of the suit be paid by the defendants ,,,....
Another suit was begun against the North hi'cr
SUGAR Refining COMPANY The complaint sots forth
that the company was duly Incorporated under inc
net Of the LEGISLATURE Of February II, 1913, ana mo"
s certificate OF Incorporation on February TO- 1000
That for the purpose Of establishing ana
a monopoly for the manufacture ana saie VI i'",01
sugar. Of diminishing tho production ana otinanc
he vaua the company combined, cOuiohci@'0" 80
agreed with other sugar refneres as follows Ihe'
all reaneries not then Incorporated should pooome
companies, which should issue capital stock to ne trans
ferred 10 a board of eleven trustees who arc syled
GThe Sugar Refnories Company" IN other WORDS 'lo
SUGAR Trust Tho trust gave in return us corporao
stock to larger amount than was depos'teo W 'no
Individual firms. by the rules OF the trust MS
,ortv vote of the board controlled the prouncoh HI"
tho pco OF sugar and arbitrarily regulated The 'rido'
The complaint goes to say that the Combination
constitutes monopoly and is injurious to trade anu
| commerce. and that by entering the combination Vho
defendant company violated the law and forfeited us
charer It ia further claimed that they have Vioated
the law and forfeited their CHARTER Dy going OUT Vi
business for SIX months and receiving share OIL the
nroats Of the trust and the defendant company
having placed itself under the control Of tho board OF
eleven trustees has violated section of tho act under
which It received charter and further, that the COM
many has not published and fled It's report as required
1 by law.
The firms named as composing the trust are lave
| never d. Elder the De Castro Is Bonner sugar Re-
| fninr Company F. O. Matthieson Is Wiechers
e1IgaP Refining ompany, Havemeyer sugar lSentIIs
| C1Tnnany Brooklyn Sugar Refining Company, DICK ~
| Never Moller sielck & Company North RIVER sugar
| Refining Contrary, OXBaTd Brothers, the etahuau
| sugar Refinery, the Bay State Sugar Refinery, me
! boston Sugar Refining Company the Oonrlnehtai
| sugar Refinery and the Revere sugar Rehnery