St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-01-12
TRYING TO BUsr TRUST.
Reading Stockholders Arm to
Prevent President Corbin's Re-
Election.

Reading Stockholders Arm to
Prevent President Corbin's Re-
Election.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 11.-Court of
common pleas No. was crowded this
morning with many learned lawyers,
the younger members of the bar, stu
dents, as well as some prominent citi-
zens, who were staining with looks of
expectancy in their faces. 1t had been
going to knock Austin Corbin out"
But later on in the day. when Mr..
johnson arose to address the full court
in banc, Presiding Judge Hare,
and Judges Hare and Pennypack-
er, it was seen that the prelim-
inarieS of the fight were very smooth
and quiet. Mr.. Johnson called the at
tentiOn of the court to the fact
that he represented the complainants,
Messrs. Shelmerdne and Ervine; that
Mr.. Bair. of Reading, was there, repre-
senting the Philadelphia 81 Reading
Railroad company and John Lowber
WEIGH. j. Pierpont Morgan and Austin
Corbin, and that Mr.. Rothernel was
there, representing John Wanamaker.
Mr.. Johnson asked the court if it would
injunction in the bills which Messrs.
Shelmerdine and IRVINE brought against
the voting trustees of the Philadelphia
81 Reading railroad, against the Phila-
adelphia u Reading railroad and against
other companies. He said he had Just
received his answers OH Thursday, that
the election takes place next Monday
and that the matter required early and
prompt hearing, as it would undoubt-
eddy affect the election. He then said
to the court that, under the reorgan-
iZatiOn plan, the voting trust would last
but two years and half more, which
would include two elections of the COM
pany; that voting trust formed to
which almost the whole of the stock
had been entrusted for the purpose of
voting only, and Mr.. johnson urged
that that was specially violating the
charter of the Philadelphia e. Reading
railroad, and was also illegal on the
ground that was violation of special
legislation applied to that road. Two
bills were filed. one by Mr.. Shelmer-
dine and one by Mr.. Ervine. 1t was an
swered by the other side that Shell
merdine was stopped from bringing
the bill by an agreement made with the
railroad. and that both Shelmerdine
and IRVINE were Influenced by Alfred
v,
the reconstruction plan both were
estopped, one by consent and one by
iaches. Mr.. johnson read an affidavit
made by Spencer IRVINE in which he
said the charge made that Sully was
influencing them was untrue; that he
(Ervine) was the holder in good faith of
the stock he owned. and that he believed
he could say the same of Shelmerdine:
that he was acting only for himself and
was not controlled in the use of his
stock. The affidavit concluded as fol-
lows: "My stock is bought with my
own funds and belongs to me-" De-
cision will be announced Monday.
Mr.. Ashurst for the Reading COM
had been deferred until this late day,
Monday being charter day. Judge
Hare, interupting, said that probably it
could be arranged by the appointment
of a master to conduct the elections,
and that elections could be held
one by the voting trust, and
the other by the shareholders
leaving the validity of the election to
be determined by the court. as was done
in the case of the Reading railroad in
1881. Mr.. johnson was willing to accept
that proposition. Mr.. Ashurst said that
the matter referred to was analogous.
LII ttlaC case JHO annual ciecUiOD Oi Gn6
company had been postponed by
agreement aud he could not con-
sent to it. lie must oppose the
application. If the applicants were en-
titled to their Injunction, he wanted
them to receive it as their right and by
the courts order, but he could not come
to such an agreement. Monday was
charter day. the day on which the cleo
ton must be held, and he knew of the
danger arising from postponing that day.
Judge Hare said that the court could not
prohibit the holding of an election. but
he might direct the election to be held
i'm certain way. Counsel then re-
sumed their argument on the question
and consumed the entire session of the
court. Upon conclusion of the argu-
ments the court. after consultation. an
nounced that they would render their
decision on Monday morning.