New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-14
THE SUGAR TRUST AGAIN.
ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE IN
JUNCTION.
An ACCOUNTING ASKED roR-DEFrND1Nc THE
nra,IIrY or THE CoMpINATIoN.

An Accor yTrNG ASKED FOR-DEFEND1NG THE
LEGALITY or THE COMBINATION.
Arcument was heard by Justice Ingraham in the
suu,eme Court Chambers yesterday, on the motion 10
contnne the temporary injunction obtained by Henry
Winthrop Gray, a. receiver Of the North River sugar
Refining COMPANY restraining the sugar RefneH''
COMPANY and Others commonly called " The sugar
Trust from alicnatng any of It's assets, and nom
having any dividends IFS stock. De Lancey
Nicoll who represented the receiver, said thai MS
client had been informed that the defendants wer'
sbot 10 transfer the property under their control.
He insisted that It should be adjadgcd that by thH
decre forf,ng the charter Of the North River sugar
Refining Company. the sugar Refncties company
which was declared by Justice Barrett 80 be part
nershjp was also dissolved that an account OF inc
pronerty should be taken and that IT should be d.
vided among The persons entitled 10 IT. lie was
entitled TO an injunction pending the proceedings.
His client declared that the agreement between the
osrtes 10 the Trust partnership: that the NORM
River sugar RefnerieS COMPANY entered That partner
ship, and that. the corporation Is now de3u' inc
receiver who Is IFS representative, was entitled 10 us
share in the assets OF the cOpar'nershp since inns
action was begun those who had control OF the lus
Of the copartnershp had paid out over Sl'ooo'ooo
In dividends In this way the interests OF me com
many which was IN the hands of Receiver Gray were
ptrously afec ted and the funds of the copartneShp
diminished.
Turning TO John +. Parsons. counsel for me
defendants Mr. NicOl said that It was only far 10
him 10 say that Mr. SealcS. the treasurer OF the trust
was asked II there any truth in the report tna'
the parties 10 the Trust about TO transfer ther
property 10 defeat the purposes of the suit and he III
response had said that Mr. Parsons denied empl all
cally that there was any foundation for the story ana
demanded the name of the author Of IL, that guSicc
might be meted out TO him.
In rerlyng TO Mr. Nlcol Mr. Parsons said mat in the
receivers affidavit. upon which the pre-
liminary injunction granted. lie
said that he had been Informed by many persons that
the defendants about 10 part with their prop
erty He does not state that he believes this" Mr.
Parsons said. " lie ought TO know the names of the
persons who furnished this information. and we ask
your Honor direct him 10 furnish the names to u.s.
If we Tan ascertain who they are, Will see that they
are properly dealt WITH
Mr. Parsons maintained that the receiver was in
duty bound to furnish the Mr. Parsons denied
that there was any foundation for the statement. The
agreement under which the Trust oIcanized was
pooling arrangement by which each holder of stock
became interested i'm all the companies Justice Bar
rti had held that the North River Sugar Refining
Company by becoming party TO this agreement, had
forfeited ~ charter The lawyer cited various author
HES in this county and IN England 10 -hOT that the
defendants combination was lot Illegal or against
prblic policy. TIL, was recognized, he said, by The
pee, ard in their combination 10 raise the price OF
SUNDAY parer, Gladstone recognized it when. IN a
recent ad,css hc attributed the agricultural distress
n Enelhrd 10 he want Of a combination by the farm
,rs TIE proc cdines had been very injurious To the
Interests Of ell concerned. A loss Of f3ooo.O00 on
$50 600 900 Of capital hal been caused by tls' publ
rsticn OF tae fact that an Injunction had been OBJ
siue1. IN IN Judgment II the General Term IL was
expressly plcvldrl that by no action which the re-
rcecr might tale should any Of the rights or inter
c.s nf the Geiendanis lie jeOpardized or iniur1ouNy
effected during he peudcncy Of the appeal further tha
nigii' necessarily result fam the judgment ITSELF
The receiver operating with those WHO sought
10 iujusr the value Of the property. October was
ih. quarterly diyC md day. and before then the
General Tern might dcc,d In favor of the defendants
II 50. thrr, Was every reason why no proceedings
should be taken now. II 'hc decision should be al
verse no Interests could suffer as the defendants were
responsible lie asked that the motion be denied
Nr Ncoll in ictIy. said that Mr. Gray lad too
great an appreciation OF his high office 10 sto0p 10
ANYTHING Iic cooperating with others TO ahect the
value Of The Trust certificates. IL could not be- said
that he was doing anything hostile 10 the North River
sugar Refining COMPANY On the contrary, he was
doing his best 10 protect the interests Of that com
pany one Of The paitncss was dead and tie partner
ship should be wound mp. The receiver wanted the
urOuciv and funds Kept in their entirety pending
final doternir alton u the proceedings. The defendants
lE rot deny that they had paid ont - 100000 in dvi
deuds and they admitted that they We're about to do
- again I'm October " II IS not possible MI NlcOll
said that your Honor, in your judicial Determinations
vii consider whether MI. Parsons's clients are able
TO get a. much as they would ten days ago. because o.
msnpulatiOns in The stOrk markcl ASH you nol
10 consider private interests. but thc Interests OF The
public. This i proceeding by the people to "ind
up this sugar trust because IT IS illegal"
Mr Parsons said that he acquitted Mr. Cray of any
intention TO bring ahout injury 10 the holders of The
stock but that that had been the result OF hi action
Mr. GRAY said he not satisfied with Mr.. Parsons
cxplanati0n to which MIR. Parsons IetOrted that he
was not there to satisfy Mr.. Gray.
The Judge took the papers, and said that alter a
short vacation he would render his decision by the
middle Of September.