New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-11-30
THE TRUSTEES COMPLAIN BITTERLY.
susrICE CULLEN RESERVES DECISION AFTER A
LONG ARGUMENT IN THE SUGAR
TRUST CASE.

TRUST CASE.
Justice Cullen in the Supreme Court, yesterday
Geard arguments on order 10 show cause why tie
May granted on Wednesday In the sugar Trust case
should not be continued pending appeal TO the Ten
era Term from Justice Pratts refusal to vacate the
interlocutory judgment granted last week The argu
ent, properly came before Justice Bartlett sitting IN
Special Term but he said he could not hear IT, having
once given legal advice the and he sent II ~
Justice Cullen.
Elbu Root said that the time for the plaintiffs and
sore OF the defendants to had not EXPIRED ana
that on the argument for receiver the motion ior
Judgment was not at issue when the 1nterlocucDry
Judgment was entered Also the plaintiffs were under
an Injunction granted by Justice Van Brunt, OF New
York restraining them from proceeding with the ac-
ton Not only were the trustees entoned, but also
the defendants and yet they had violated the oroer Vi
the court .,.
holder In his right, argued that the certihoale'
holders were entitled to distribution of the properly.
Receiver White had already signed a paper pi"
viding for illegal reorganization and 10 transfer ~
CORPORATION to New-Jersey He said the receivers i'u
only few thousands of dollars in their poSsesson'
and note for 81 100000, one of the signers OF winch
was a receiver The certifcatehoders were left alb
solutev in the dark as to what the property was.
Tho same men controlled the entire conduct OF the
case except himself, Mr.. Gleason added lie de-
sired to have an accounting at once so as 10 Rno"
inst
no one Mr. Gleason asked to have the order for an
accounting re-settled He said the same man was a
.stee Of the sugar Trust, of the receivers, ana
was proposed for president of the new company 70
he formed under the laws OF New-Jerscy. .
Mr. Root resumng his argument SAID Il take IL
to be the established rule that until decision Is
renaered paintif has control Of his own Dtlgauoh'
uow con a defendant who has never answered come
int cour+ and assume controll This rule STANDS III
equity as we'll as in law. This interference WIN o'
litigation is breach of our rights that aioho o""o'
us TO a decree Another reason that we wan. oi'o
decree vacated is that it is not IN accordance VIII" '
relief prayed for in our complaint we come 70 court
h.vine the legal right to the property. We did not
uropose 10 come into court and offer to open up our
whole proceedings and rob ourselves Of any pfo'eco
offered us by the trust agreement we auege 1at t'e
property can only be distributed by sale Mr. uiea
son asks for an actual partition OF stocK' ie uo'.
goes on 10 provide for full discovery of the aars o.
the corporations, but no person ever ashoo io' "'
cry. The judgment has been entered In Vo',o VI az
rules and ALI the terms Of the decree are dlsthcus
offensive II Is not right that man, who IKE MI
Cameron bought stock for the purpose oi h's'
ton should control the trustees VINO are ioohhs ''0
the rights Of the certificate holders. A.,
Edward NJ Shepard said THIS decree Seos up o'
trustees as Wall Street institution TO "ihd VI
the affairs we must have the unanimous consent vi u"
holders decree of the court WHICH PioP
eriy take sthe place of such consent Inns aece NC
not do that aud TO make IL more OFFENSIVE o"' =,
are completely tied while those OF other oefuoaOo
holders are free We cannot bring another sui' anu
I'd or Sd page Reading Notice 80 -,
can only move against paroles already ~ in's w."
represent only 1-25 Of per cent OF the stoch' WIN
ne are left liable 10 actions by LOW cer"i'"
holders as trustees and have no chance 10 pro,7'
ourselves Any delay In the prosecution OF tie ac"oh
has been unavoidable" -,
Mr. Hill IN his answer said that ne uought .'o
trustees had ample protection against the cer7nos
holders The trustees wanted to go about 10 o",e'
courts and secure delay. II was proper 10 Dr's "o
whole thing into action. As TO the aiiesca Nrols
IN the discovery, how could the court deal AIRY ana
1ecnffv with the case until 10 knew about the prop
wyf The people whom the trustees were bound 20
protect should know the value Of their properly. Ihe