New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-19
HE SAYS 1T WAS A TRlCk.
But THE COMPLAINANT TOOK THE CHEck'
SUIT TO PREVENT THE LEASE OF THE CLNihAh
RAILROAD OF NEw-JERSEY TO

THE READING.
There was hearing yesterday before Cn''i,'c
McGill. In the suit brought By Alfred MILLS VI 1,u
town, y. j., executor Of the estate OF sVcVio"
against the Port Reading Railroad CohlpanS' -.
aside the lease OF the Central Railroad OF Nc"
to 1t. When Stephen Vail died lie LETT MS no,i' Tso
ernl thousand shares OF stock in the Central Ia"
heirs were opposed to the lease OF the Central 10 '
Port Reading when the combination was formed anu
soon rs 1t consummaed tley appno" " w.
Chancellor to have the lease set aside. Ihe al
on the case Will take place at Trenton this week. me
hearing yesterday was an important SIDE lssue. ~
was caused By the application Of Barker s. Guinmere
TO have set aside the allegation OF the Fort keaolhg ~
the Vail estate had been estopped irom any a'uon
tending make the lease Of the Central road 10 Tue
Port Reading invalid
In opening the proceedings Mr. Gummere sad that
he wanted to expose In court the trick Ne PorI heau
ing had resOrted to that its case might be e'lehs
ened He added that the lease Of the Central han
been made without the direct consent OF the stock
holders and that the lease had not been ratified py
them at the regular meeting What Mr. Guinmere
termed n trick, he explained to the Chancellor, was
that on May the Port Reading sent the comphlhaits
a check for a little more than 81 100 and declared 1t
10 be a regular dividend under the lease The chech
was received and accepted By the executor Oh oie
estate and Immediately the lawyers for the Port Read
ing declared that the acceptance OF the check was an
estOppel and that II virtually sancuOhed TIE O"so vi
the Central.
Mr.. Gummcre declared that the check was In reahtS
only the regular quarterly dividend OF the Cehuai
Railroad Company. lie said that the complmaaht
had not received a notice Of the annual meeting OF the
stockholders and that he should have received one
when such important business was TO be transacted.
Mr. Emory for the defendant argued that the Dill
OF the complainant get forth that the lease had never
been submitted to the stockholders and approved W
them and that no mention Of an annual meeting
and the check had been made to the complainant Inc
action taken By the complainant. he said was vir'u,
ally that of one stakeholder asking the Court Oh
Chancery to manage the business Of the central ro
for the benefit Of single stOckholder WITHOUT reSal
70 tho Others The Port Reading In answer 10 the
bill set I'D that It did send ont reports ana uiu
give notices Of an annual meeting. and that at ms
meeting the lease was ratified unanimously DIV inc
200 600 shares OF stock represented out OF hoou'
a.5 900 or 100000 shares. Mr.. Emory adml'ted ,he
port Reading did send the check referred 10 oy r'
Gummere, but said notice was sent WITH II tlh' ~
was the first dividend from the Port Reading uhder 'le
leose and the complainant received and accep;eo IT..
Chancellor Mcoiill decided to permit the tiung ~,
,ridn,.tu nj Trenton tomorrow. Today the aiE"ih'n'
In tho suIi brought by the state TO dissolve lie Coni
iuntou will begin before the Chancellor AZ VI,
md a, soon a. II Is finished. the case vi 'he '''i
estate will be argued.