The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-07-23
THE CHuTRAL'S Side.
Argument for the Defense
in the Vail Suit Against
the Reading Com
bine.
THAT BIG INTEREST CHECK.
Lawyer John G. Johnson Pro-
nOunces the Proceeding Un-
parallelled nthe History
of Equity.
THAT BIG INTEREST CHECK
Special to the Jersey City Me,vs !.


TRENTON, July %, 1892 - The
Central Railroad had its innings
yesterday in the suit brought by the es-
tate of Stephen Vail to have the Chancel-
lor declare the lease of the Central to the
Port Reading null and void. The argu-
ment for the defendants was begun by
John 6. johnson, Philadelphia railroad
lawer. He said:-
represent in this case the Port Read
ing Railroad Company, which for nearly
six months has been in the undisturbed
and undisputed possession of the line of
railway in dispute; which for upwards
of four months. as far as could be gath
cred from anything that could be known,
had that possession and that use acqui-
esced in by every stockholder of this
corporation; a corporation upon the
fact that at Its annual meeting
an enormous.vote had been polled, and
unanimously polled in favor of this lease;
has made all its business arrang gements:
has entered into its contracts, has done
everything that has been necessary to
make this part of the system of national
can be heard. before your Honor can de-
eide what are the rights of these parties.
you are asked prematurely and urriedly
to half decide this case by granting an In
junction and by appointing a receiver.
STORY OF THE LEASE.
ION the 18th of February, 1892, this
lease was made. 1t was known instantly
to everybody, for it was the worlds
secret; known certainly to these people,
by their own confession, early in March,
and much more certainly known in day
after the lease had been made. Was there
any dissent? Did they express to any
body connected with company with their
own company, or with the company
lessee, dissent? They conceived not.
Later, on the 9Th day of April, in order
that the stockholders might know what
was known, and in advance of the
annual meeting, the President of the
company sent out a month before the
meeting a supplemental report in which
he stated what had been done, the terms
of the lease, and all that was essential Co
know in the matter, These complainants
concsded that they received the notice
notwithstanding the receip', about
April s, of the formal report announcing
the lease; Notwithstanding that notice OF
the annual meeting and of that request
that they should be present. still not
word of dissent. with the know. edge that
ing Railroad Company, was making all
its plans and investing enormous sums of
money upon the face of the lease.
THAT INTEREST CHECK.
son the I'd day of May a check was
sent to these complainants,a "a check which
they read announcing upon its face that
it was paid out OF the proceeds of the
rental. Still not word Of dissent. but
deposit of the check. On the 9Th OF Nav
the annual meeting was held. There
was no reason why the com
plainants should not be present.
having entered into an agreement with
some one or something, that il this suit
was brought they would be indemnified
against all its costs and expenses; that
then. at the instance of that person thus
indemnifying them, these complaiDants
it is said that silence is golden. Not al
ways. Sometimes it is brazen. Who is
this secret benefactor?
Is it co-shareholder? What motive
could he have for conceaIment? Though
by this bill the recruiting drum has been
sounded long and loud, not single CO.
shareholder ranges himself under the
banner OF this complainant. 1t is not an
individual. Men only in their wills are
thus bepetcent. 1t is not the Common
wealth of New Jersey. She skulks be-
hind no cover. Through her Attorney
General sne wages open war. 1t must be
a corporation. Which2 There is
one which, having extorted from the
Legislature OF New Jersey all thar
the most boundless desire could de-
mand, brooks no rival. One whose oflci-
ais in their dreams see written on the
wall in writing unmistakable the warn
ing of waning power. 1t cannot be that
corporation, because If it was. Mr.. Gum
mere would not be here representing the
plaintiff, for we all know how
long he has been antagonistic to
it. and he has shown his dislike Of
it by saying that he does not ask that the
Pennsylvania Railroad shall be Inc re-
ceiver in this case.
A UNIQUE CASE!
Referring to the cnarter of the Central
Mr.. johnson concluded his argument
thus:-
"Has your Honor, in all your expert
ence of the Chancery decisions of this
State. of all the other States, and OF Eng
land, ever heard man demanding by
special injunction that there shall be
property taken out of the hands of the
persons in whose control ne puts it, when
he, himself, with full knowledge accepts
the proceeds. Why, old as is the exist
ence of equity itself, is it's cardinal re-
quirement-'Whoso demaadeth shall do
equity"