New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-19
THE COURTS.
ASKING THAT DIVIDENDS BE PAID
Mr.. GRAY MUST SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY
SHOULD NoT-EARNIyGs OF THE NORTH
-.-I.l. ~.

Mr. GRAY MUST SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY
SHOULD Nor-EARNINGs OF THE NORTH
RIVER SUGAR REFINING COMPANY.
Judge O'Brlen in the supreme Court yesterday
granted an order requiring Henry W. Gray, as re-
ccfvcr of the North sugar Refining Company, to show
cause why dividend should not be declared on tho
stock of the company The following aitdavits were
read which declared that the earnings of the company
warranted the paying Of dividend. The motion 10
pay dividend viii be argued before Judge Andrews
In the Supreme Court, Chambers, this afternoon. The
following sworn 10 before Il. J. Fox on Monday
Henry W. Gray, as receiver Of the North RIVER
sugar Refining Company nst DE Castro ana Bonner
sugar Refining Company and others, Guy ana county
Of New YorA, ss o.
JnliWs A. stuIsherg, William Dick +. o. Matthcssen
aud j. Jurgelscn, being duly and sevcraily sworn,
We are dy.dusl defendants. We have heard read
the foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF MIR nearlcs We are familiar
Of knowledge since the jndsment Of TINS court
in the suit OF The People vs. the North River Rein.
Ing Company, entered on January 81. 1850, at which
time the con plant alleges that there was dissolved
The partnership which the complaint claims that the
there have been declared and paid dividends upon the
certificates OF the sugar Rcincries Company as ioi-
lows April l. 1889, 81 ,23l O2O July ], loo9,
Fl 23l 422 so October /, 1850, S,23l 44o; January
/, 1890, ~ ,23l ,l47 so. mi, ..o,,
profits. OF profits since Tho said date January 81,
icop there have been made hy the sugar Reinees, IN
T m%aD more tns s p .nicent to pay dy
dend of 81 100000. Assertions to re
contrary made from time to time arc WITHOUT ionnua
ton The money to pay dividend OF 81 ,25oOoo,
IL per cent fjO,OOO,OOO, Is Oh mana anu reaoy
to be used for the purpose. 1t has been earned
or assets in the nature Of capital IL, Of TIC sun
Of 81 25O,O 600 the North River sugar Refining Com,
pany or the plaintiff. Its receiver, were cntitiet
share In the proportion OF me ovoo siiaSs %
the amount would DC $14sIo. Not only that
amount but any other claim OF the complaint can
be paid many times over from profits, III aauitlo'i
tu all previous dividends.
The individual defendants. as trustees OF the sugar
Rehncrics Company, have determined TO declare
dividend Of > per cent outstanding certificates
and propose to do 80 unless prevented by inc or;r
the rs certificates are held. IN laiec part,
Tor Investment, by persons who depend upon tnc
llvldcnds for income there will be great hardship
in preventing their receiving money which has been
carried and TO which they entitled 1t Is mani
fest that tho protection security OF the plaintiffs
n! receiver, OF the North River sugar Refining Com
pany, does not require that the payment OF owl
amount therefore, which can be recovered by the
rlalntF as receiver, belongs 10 certificate holders
Inc claim of the plaintiff, at best. is nominal on
the basis. however, that It Is substantial, the piant
th he nroperty Of the North River Sugar Refining
COMPANY l2) 4 Ii, pendens covering all tie New
York rcfncrics On An injunction restraining the
transfer Of property, real and personal: except IN
the ordinary course Of business. lD II IL can 10
Thought that The above is not sufficient, the trustees
are willing ton the settlement Of Judge O'Brlens
order they prOposc to deposit, In trust company
To abide the event N this action. sum equai 10
the proportion in the dividend Of the certificates
claimed by the plaintiff. TO the entire amount Theo-
Stursbcrg. william Dick, /. o. MattlesSen' j. Jur'