The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-05-15
FOUND AGAINST HOLLINS.
4. NJ KIDDER & CO. RECOVER TIE
FULL AMOUNT SUED FOR.

Tho Distinguishes FInancIer VIII Have ts
Tnko Back tho Lot of Syracuse and
RnldwinsVilIo Railroad Bonds tniohded
Upon a. VI. KIdder a. Co, and Pay SAL
Ss0.O7, tho Selling Price aud Interest.
The jury that has been trying the case OF
A. NJ kidder 4 Co. against Frank G. Hollins Il
| Co. for the past seven days, brought in n ver-
dict yesterday for the plaintiffs. The complaint
charged that Hollins by fraudulent ropresen-
tations induced Kidder & Co. to purchase t4O,-
600 Of Syracuse and Baldwinsvie Railroad
first mortgage bonds at "a. Among the repre-
i sensations were: That Hollns had declared
the cost OF constructing the road to be the full
| Issue OF bonds. and that the issue was 100000;
that the road was In good condition, earning
| more than its fixed charges; that sale Of the
stock had been made at SO; that the bonds
wero insured by an arrangement with the
New York Central eysem; that the bonds
offered were not syndicate bonds. but were
held by investors; and that the purchase was
to be on Joint account. Hollins to take as much
as kidder x Co. did at the same price.
Many witnesses we're examined among them
DR.. Chauncey NJ. Depew, and vast amount OF
documentary evidence was introduced. Coun-
sci completed their arguments on Tuesday
afternoon. and shortly after opening Of court
yesterday Judge InRraham charged tho jury.
He spoke rapidly for more than half an hour.
touching on all the points In the complaint.
There are two classes Of representations"
said Judge IpRraham upon which the plain
tits relied: Ono comprises oral statements
and the other written statements which passed
between the parties. Among the written state
ments are two OF special importance. Tho
first is a communication relative to tho April
earnings OF the road. This came from an off,
the defendant Wing has said that he received
that communication from Holins prior TO the
something on which he could base an intelii-
gent judgment as to the value Of the
%as sent 10 Wne o ope sn aer t6e sR1e ass
ford corroborates Wing saying that he is posi-
tive that the statement was II his hands seye-
asked for further information concerning tho
road, and that he made up the bond circular
ment was delivered to the plaintiffs be fore The
not say expressly that 1t contains all the re- |
month OF April. A balance Is struck and the |
sum found Is called excess receipts This |
Be Sen fG tho rs nnH s @S
dIee them 70 believe that it showed the net re-
S ha Re 81 a s
result. then It was q fraud and the plaintiffs |
are entitled to recover.
and about 1t there Is no dispute While the |
PLAINTIFF were considering the question OF buy
Il
which he told them that a sale OF bonds had |
been made above par. that he had q Hartford
aud he wants them to give him a speedy deci..
sion. This naturally presents tho appearance
IN Which, the ssps ba
hudson has bought 100 shares of the, stock at
5S, has offered 80 for 100 more. and that there
BY ali that the market, price Of stock is, ma
teral element In making tho price Of bonds
that there is reasonable ground for
believing that the. enterprise viii bring
As the interest on the bonds G must be- sI nsd
first 1t follows that With stock q definite value
Would be am material factor in considerips
whether the bonds would be good invest
mont: Notice that this is a positive statement:
statement which the defendant admits that be
made ard Thtch Wing dsos[es that he relied
shares Of stock HoiIns gave a. e sas tai
sSarest e
This friend sails Us En JHdsGP Co. nd sends
e Hoins. where the, stock was Obtained With
h9ns's money. and wi where ere the stock vas
stock. i tbs stood alone. YOU would need only
ne Sn' upon M Witch Wing reiied Hons says
Howsyef thSt he ted Wing II. facts sonceTn
ID bonds, il you believe that, then. OF course.
Wing could not have relied ie. upon that state
nent II you believe Hollins when he SAYS
that after he wrote that note he told Wing l
am a liar / never really sold that stock. and
led when | wrote you that did, then the
plaintiffs cannot recover"
After the charge LAWYER Frederick W. Hin !
-ichs, counsel for Hollins. asked for charges (
is to various details in the testimony, TO all !
If which the Judge consented saying: OF s
course 1t Is understood that the Jury is to |
consider all OF the evidence" Albert Gallup. I
or the plaintiffs, made no requests and no !
objections to- his adversary. The jury retired '
u :95 A. NJ. and remained out until 2:l5 I
VATnint haaD n | v
lr. Hinrichs asked for stay of sixty days v
liter the fling OF notice Of judgment. This
vas resisted by Mr. Gallup: who declared. In :
loubt as to the defendants responsibility. The !
ordinary stay Of thirty days was therefore =
.ranted. and before tho day closed notice of r
Judgment had been filed. The amount re-
overed Is $4l .5s9.O7. the full amount sued for {
With interest. T.