Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-04-21
THE PAN-ELECTRIc SUITS.
The Court In General Term Winds Up q
Celebrated Case.

In the Court In General Term this morning
decision was announced In the celebrated
psn-electric case, otherwise the case OF J. Har.
ris Rogers against ex-Attorney General Gar
land, Gen. Joseph Z. Johnston, Isham q. Har-
ris, John ID. G. Atkins and Casey Young.
Judge Cox delivered the opinion o. the court
The case has been in the courts since the
summer of 1856 and was brought for dissolu-
ton Of partnership, an account, &c. In De-
cember, 1886, Judge James, in the Equity
Court. dismissed the bill and the plaintiff ap-
pealed. In December, 1883, the Court in General
Term reversed the decree, Diminishing the case
and remanding il to the special term. and on
september % last on motion OF Mr.. Earle il
was certified to the General Term by Judge
Cox to be heard in the first instance Here IL
was argued a few weeks ago by Messrs. Harris
and Harris and Critcher and Critcher for the
plaintiff and Messrs Eppa Hunton, JEFF Chand-
Ter and W. Z. Earle for defendants.
BRIEF REVIEW OF TIE CASE
The complainant claimed to be the owner OF
number of patents, 70 operate which Joint
stock company was formed, but after inter-
views with him a new company WAS formed by
me defendants on basis Of a capital of $780,
VUo. tie charges that the defendants had
not kept their agreement with him to
push the project and secure a comprehensive
charter, and that they had deprived him of
his rights IN various ways. They had, he
claimed, forfeited their rights and were heavily
indebted 70 him, and he PRAYED for an account
DC. They had, he said agreed to push their
stock, but some of the defendants being APP
prehenslve that stock operations might inter-
fere with their political aspirations DELAYED
the issue OF stock and in other ways acted in
bad faith with him.
Ex-Attorney General Garland in his an
swer, denied that any injury had been done the
complainant, but asserted that the complainant
had violated his contract by selling a large
part, If not the whole OF his interest, tor
$4,000 or 5OOO0, thereby injuring the COM
pany and bringing it and the stock into disre-
pute. Mr.. Garland and the other defendants
denied In detail all the material allegations
made by the complainant.
The DECISION OF THE COURT.
Judge Cox, in delivering the decision today,
In general manner revie wed the averments OF
the bill and answers, the testimony and plead
ings. The court held that the charge of viola
ton of agreement had not been sustained, the
original agreement having been IN effect car
ried out; that the allegation of a new and
| amended contract being made was not sus-
tanned; that complainant was not entitled 10 an
account nor for money to be paid back for the
reason that an account had been taken
and the complainant received his dividends
when paid, and if he had not been paid enough
ms remedy was by an action at Law. All that
he was entitled to was a reconveyance OF
patents not conveyed to the Pan Electric Tele-
phone Company and Pan Electric Telegraph
Company. The bill would be dismissed each
party to pay his own costs.
Mr. ROGERS INCLINED NOT TO APPEAL
Mr.. Rogers has not determined fully whether
he will prosecute the case further BY appeal or
not but he is inclined not to do so. Under the
decision rendered today he will receive BY re.
CONVEYANCE fifteen of the twenty-five patents
involved.