New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-05-28
a VICTORY FOR MRS. AVER.
rv,prEp TO CARRY THE ELECTION BY A
FAVORABLE COURT DECISION.
MANAGEMENT FOR HER coMPANf-lhh
sEyMoURs COULD NOT vorE-oPdS1oN
OF JUDGE DAILY.

sEYMoURS COULD NOT VorE-ofuN4'N
OF JUDGE DAILY.
Yesterday was day Of victories for MRS 10
,,h,ard Aver Judge DAILY gave decis'on n ~ n
nv, IN her action to prevent James NJ 90!
fs'ot - tu,,, voting IN A9s shares OF the STOCK OF
" Recamier Company which she maih'aincu 10 10
s.n given to him as security for loan OF S'o0Vo'
"a the annual election by the stocKhouers % W.
.nmnany resulted In the complete oVerhr'" " A
Seymour faction. -. Aha oaces of the
The annual election held at the oiuCoe W -
sompapy No. 81 Park Place, and the nioe., ,,s ~
nrsceded it was exceedingly stormy. william .-,
pi "a ar ero ~ DIN Rives & Montgomery
A., Ayar,s counsel appeared her proxy, "pio-
.r,tny A7o shares OF the stock ana presluo" "
meeting Daniel G. Thompson appeSiou 'V 800"
A Robtnson or Mrs. Mason. koOlhs"" ~ $50,
recently sold the thirty shares 10 NIB - W a.
the franchise Of the stock was uiSqS - as
nonexpration Of the timelmit ai'er 'no '-o1 g. On.
,ncordad These shares had been seou'0u -
recoueu' ms "a MrS Mason and Mr.. Robinson
- ~, ., hand so that either could vote III case d
s,,o, Ia b.an ptven In Mr.. Seymours is'or lho
r,t 30 the election was that John T. Eus"s' "00isO
n Beattys and Mrs Aver were e4''0 t.ss
17o votes 70 . the minority belhS 'no 'i'o s ~ -.
h.ld nv Allen Lewis seymour ana Aireu l. "o
TO qualify them trustees Inc fuses - wy
49, elected Mrs. Aver president OF the company
Iornr rpstis secretary, and George d. Beattys
- The now officers Of the company
Min a, once assume control OF its affairs
OPINION OF THE, JUDGE.
49,, n.,y,s decision does not settle Mrs. Ayers
-. -, ,cover possession Of tho 4So shares VI s'ooA
49, csvuour alleges were gwen to MN IN 0ou
,a,Lo, FIR his services in organizing the company
IT, IrAce In his decision, reviews the tesUmoIS @'
length and after referring 10 Mr. seymour uenSl ~
anI, IN the City Court that he was financially III
- - that upon
~, a,rsrt issue between him and Mrs. Aver no ioels
,ornd 10 hold that her unimpeached testimony must
a. ,be case now stands outweigh his DENIAL lne
Iudpe declares that this conclusion us suehH'nen0u
nv tle attitude OF James NJ. seymour with respect W
the serious charge that ne fraudulently ootaneo Nc
cess TO the plaintiffs house while she was ABSENT n
Europe and carried away writings among which were
So oup communicable 10 her respecting tho pay
ur,,t Of tbs loan OF $4,000 for which the stock was
pledged with him.
THE DENIAL. OF THE DEFENDANT.
sovuour,s denial OF this is declared to be merely
. neca,ive pr,cnant and net "a denial that he TOOK
away in a manner described, certain papers inns
extraordinary admission continues the Judge, - ca
gaining access 10 plaintiffs papers by fraud
OF examining such papers and Of abstrachng wna' u"
wanted theqefroIn, makes II apparent that nc is
dsterred by no scruplGs and renders such posiuNe
depals As he docs make Of the least possible weight
away We are therefore at liberty TO presume thst
n they were produced they would not c1IrOoorae
him or sustain his version Of the transactions Inc
judge expresses himself TO the same effect In regard I"
the alleged fraudulent manner in which seymour
obtained inspection If letters written by Mrs AVER
20 her physician concerning the defendant, ana lie
SAYS: Upon tie presented upon the andaFi's
tie weight Of evidence TO be with plaintlh On
the question # the ownership of i9S shares Of stock
ia disput. - Concerning the alleged administration
If drugs to Mrs. Aver the Judge holds mat INC
10 .timony of experts and others Is COnulcithS ana
thai the settlement Of the dispute as TO the qdaai
or quality Of the doses Is not 10 BE- eATc''eI
on lgdayit,. lie takes the same view OF Ia! suE'
ccstiOns II the completely in the cons Iir!cF OF WI
blanche liOwaNl IN wIUse charge tn LA Lt.i W.
while In Europe and says: The unieHllthHS Per,
sonal care bestowed upon plaintiff by her Is vonchel
for by all defendants witnesses 10 the uafsa
tons5 He declares that there can be no room LOT
doubt that the defendants intended 10, or believed
they could use Miss Howard. and that the evidence
clearly establishes The fact that james NJ seymour
and hts son engaged In the effort TO Keep the
plaintiff out OF the country aud away nom the
MANAGEMENT of the business, which was enuTey IN
their hands and under their control.
The motion TN the other suit 10 dismiss the com
plant is denied and the Injunction against with
iravinc any more funds from the company is con-
tinued pending the suit. Austin g. Fox and stephen
H. DIN appeared for the plaintiff In the two sufS'
and Roger 4. Pryor and F. H. Cah for the defendants.