New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-07-02
WERE THE DIVIDENDS PAIDf
ANOTHER SUGAR TRUST COMPLICATION.
CHECKS MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED DESPITE Az

CHECKS MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED DESPITE Az
INJUNcTION-THE LATEST COMPLAINT.
When the old Sugar Trust people abandoned
their form Of combination and procured charter
in New-IerSey under the name of the American
Sugar Reiineries Company they possibly hoped
that they would be free from annoyance from lltl-
CATION The trust form had afforded excellent
opportunities for newspaper attack and LOT
manipulations by the trustees who knew how the
business was being conducted. bug refused 10
furnish information 10 the public The conver-
sion of the trust into a corporation has not
spared the Sugar people from attack and they
are put to the necessity Of meeting disturbing
charges.
Yesterday Judge Barnard, in the Supreme Cours
OF Kings County granted an injunction against
the American Stgnr Re6neries Company, re-
straining the payment Of dividends until there
had been an accounting of the property OF tho
Brooklyn Sugar Refining Company, demanded in
q suit brought by James A. Taylor Wall Street
had rumors on Tuesday Of threatened litigation
against the Sugar Trust, as IL is stlll populary
known, but they have been so frequent little
attention paid TO them by careful INVESTORS
But these investors are now wondering whether
they will receive their dividends. On June the
Sugar Trust directors declared semi annual dlV-
dends of ID and per cent respectively upon
the preferred and common stocks. NO state
mcnt Of earnings was given out, but the charter
of the company requires that The preferred stock
should he paid in full before ANYTHING is paid on
the common stock. IL was supposed that SUI
icent sum was set aside to provide for years
payment on the preferred stock in order to JUS
tify the declaration of the dividend the common
stock.
It WIS rumored Yesterday that the checks for
the dividend on the common stock had been
mailed 10 stockholders The friends of MIR. lay
lor declared that if this were true then the
directors of the Sugar Company were guilty OF
yontempt of court. Another report was that
the Sugar directors met in New-.Jersey and or
dered the dispensing of the dividends at once,
the checks to be dated July 2, in order to avoid
the possible charge of contempt Of court.
! The market for Sugar Relinercs stock stood
! up well against the influence of the new attack,
! and there were nsinuatOns that the Taylor suit
was based upon stock -jobbing considerations This
! is Indignantly denied by Mr. Iayiors friends, and
! it is declared by some of them that the present
suit is only the beginning of a campaign intended
| to expose alleged weakness In the corporation
which has succeeded TO the powers and RESPONSE
! biities of the old Sugar Trust
The injunction granted by Judge Barnard is re-
| turnabe AT POughkecpSe on July II. The COM
plaint may he summarized as follows:
Mr. Taylor is the owner of 80 shares and 100000
| bonds of the Brooklyn Sugar Refining Company.
! He turned them in on November 80, lSS7, TO the
| Sugar Trust The Brooklyn Company received
S4,25O 900 Trust stock, | ; per cent remaining in
the Trust treasury. Mr Taylor received 454 shares
of the new stock and he alleges that he was TO
receive 1s1 shares additional in 1895. After
the dissolution of the Trust his stock was offered
! to him on the payment of S2s share. He refused
| il and protested that the trustees had been
unfaithful After the stock dividend Mr.. Taylor
had / 95 shares coming TO him. and he demanded
| them, but he was told that he must pay S2s
share assessment. On April A, 1891, he offered
| s., ,46O in full for his stock but this was re-
| fused bv the new trustees or directors. The COM
| paint alleges that after December 1890, the
Brooklyn Company, without Mr. Taylors con-
sent transferred all its property TO the American
| Sugar Refneres Company for an inadequate sum
| Of 5000 900 in bonds Of the American Company,
whereas the property went into the Trust at
valuation of 81, ,250, 900. and was probably worth
! 81 ,00O 900. The complainant declares his belief
! that the $4,000, 900 mortgage of the American
| Company is illegal, and that the officers OF the
! Brooklyn Company arc hostile to him ana are
| defrauding him.
! APPEALING FROM THEIR TAX ASSESSMENT.
The New-Jersey state Tax Commissioners met In
Chancery Chambers at Jersey CITY Yesterday 10 hear
testimony in the appeal Of Matthiessen Wiechers