The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-07-18
THE VAILS' INTEREST.
A Check for ST, 100 Paid the
Executors By the Port
Reading Railway.
BEARING BEFORE THE CHANCELLOR.
New Jersey Central Claims the Pay
ment Is an Estoppel of the
Lease Dissolution Suit.

The Reading-Lehigh Central combina-
alton was again before the Chancellor this
morning in hearing in the suit brought
by the executors of the estate of Stephen
Vail for the dissolution of the lease of the
Central Chancellor McGill had set
down today specially to hear argument
on an application made by Barker S.
Gummere on behalf of the executors to
set aside the claim Of the New Jer-
sey Central and Port Reading Com
panies that the eomplainants had been
estopped from any action tending to make
the lease of the Central to the Port Read
ing invalid. Associated with Mr.. Gum
mere were number of younger lawyers.
and beside him sat Alfred Mills of Norris
town, one of the executors of the estate
and the one who had determined to con-
test the validity of the so-called perpetual
lease. Jacob K. Emory, counsel for the
Port Reading, armed with a huge bundle
of solemn and dry looking papers, was
also on hand. He informed Chancellor
McGill that he had received a telegram
from ex Chancellor Williamson, counsel
for the New Jersey Central Road. saying
Emory was in consequence alone in the
defense of the combination.
STOCKHOLDERS IGNORED.
Barker 5. Gummere began the proceed
ings by saying he wanted to EXPOSE the
trick on the part of these people," which
nnecessitated his being in court. Mr..
Gummere contin ued that the lease of the
Central Railroad to the Port Reading
Company had been made without the di-
rect consent of che stockholders and that
the lease had not been ratltied by them
at the regular meeting of the stock
holders The lease. he said, had never
been submitted to the stockholders.
The so-called trick that Mr.. Gummere
desired to call the attention of the Chan
cellor to, was that on May check for
81 ,0O0 was sent, the complainants by the
Port Reading Company. which declared
The amount, to be regular dividend un-
der the combination. The check was &C.
cepted by his client, and Immediately
counsel for the Combine claimed
that this was an estoppel.
In other words. the acceptance
of the check was virtually sanction by
the complainauts of the action of the
Central road in making the lease to the
Port Reading Company. Mr.. Gummere
claimed that This check had been sent for
the purpose of the trick and he denounced
it vigorously, claiming that the Port
Reading had no money with which to
pay QlVldenQS Cnen.
POOR PORT READING.
''The Port Reading" said the eminent
Counsellor. did not have cent at the
time it gave the check. 1t had not earned
a cent and did not have a cent except
what it got from the Central Railroad
Company"
Mr.. Emory interrupted by saying it had
earned the money after the lease was
made and had a perfect right to use the
earnings of the Central Road,
Mr.. Gummere continued his argument.
He declared that the complainant had
not received any notice of the annual
meeting of the stockholders of the road,
aud that notice of such meeting should
nave been sent. 1t was a legal right the
complainant had and he should
have received the notice. The
Chancellor asked if the bylaws of the
company did not provide whether no.
tIce should be sent or not. and Mr.. Gum
mere answered that they did not. They
simply stated that on certain date an
annual meeting Tor the election of officers
and the transaction of other business
should be held. Mr.. Emory did not de-
ny this.
THE RAILWAY SIDE.
On behalf of the Combine Mr.. Emory
said that the bill in Chancery that had
been fled was made by Alfred Mills and
others, executors, to have the lease SET
aside and hearing take place. The bill
set forth that the lease had never been
submitted TO the stockholders and ap-
proved by them; that no mention of an
annual meeting and the check had been
made to compliments. This he
said was virtually one stockholder
asking the Court of Chancery
to manage the business of the company
for the benefit of single stockholder
without regard to the other stockholders.
The Central Railroad Company. in answer,
sets up that it did send out reports and
give notices OF an annual meeting and
that at this meeting the lease was ratified
unanimously by the 100000 shares of
stock represented out of about 225,000 or
100000 shares. The company did send the
complainant a check for the amount
mentioned and notice that 1t was the
first dividend from the Port Reading
company under the lease and the COM
plainant received it. MIR. Emory could
no. the1 efore understand why the appli-
cation today SHOULD set forth that no no
tice Of the annual meeting had been sent
the stockholders. He claimed that the
complainants should have made an ap-
peal to the stockholders at the annual
meeting not to ratify the lease if it was
not satisfactory.
THAT" said the lawyer, would have
been equity. Is it any reason why he did
not attend the meeting that he received
no noticeP Is this any answer to the es-
toppel? lie wants now to have the Court
do for him what he failed to do himself
before the annual meeting. Why did not
ne protest at this meeting?"
After some further unimportant discus
sion, the Chancellor gave the parties 10
the suit leave to serve a two days notice
in open court to take affidavits in the pro-
: ceedinRs at Trenton. The affidavlts will
be taken Wednesday. Tomorrow the suit
of the State against the Port Reading
Company to dissolve the lease will begin
at Trenton, and it will last at least two
days. 1t will be followed Immediately by
the suit brought by the Vail estate TO de-
clare the lease of the Central to The Port
Reading invalid.
An Atrocious Ruf1ian Jailed.
On Saturday evening Alexander Doug
1ass s1xtv wears old of No 267 Eairn,ont