The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-07-01

court lu regard 20 the llsfrduCllSUMout OF
the ~. 900 shares and the appointment Of
q receiver under that bin. on the grounds
OF lack Of jurisdiction and want OF equity.
/ am ready 20 try this case II the other
parties arc"
Mr. Marion Erwin wanted some post
pOuemeut, but Justice jackson told him
il would be disposed OF then and there If
il TOOK the court until midnight
Mr. Erwin. " said Judge Speer, "this
is an exceedingly important case, cspec-
tally with regard 10 the voting OF the A..
600 shares. II is important at least. so
far as one mem Der Of this court is con
cerued. / should like to have all the evi-
dence before "a final decree is reached"
ATTACKING THE COURTS JURISDICTION.
Mr.. Erwin, solicitor for Mrs. Clarke,
read the bill brought in her behalf He
denied the legality of the election OF the
board Of directors at the election in which
these $4,000 shares participated, He
showed that some of the stockholders had
gone to the directors and asked them TO
end avor to terminate the domination Of
the Central by the Terminal Company,
and they had refused to take any steps in
the matter
Are you attacking the Jurisdiction of
the court, Mr.. CrawfOrdi' asked Justice
jackson.
Yes may it please your honor" re
piled Mr.. Crawford. Il am attacking
the jurisdiction of the court on the ground
Of equity rule "a, on the ground Of citizen
ship and onthe absence of any equity cog
nizac under the acts of congress"
did not Judge Pardce and l decide
upon examination that the 9th equity
rule cut no figure in this transaction"
asked Judge Speer of Mr.. Erwin as he re-
sumed.
you did, SIR said Mr.. Erwin, who,
then went on TO read a letter from Major
A. o. Bacon, a stockholder, making some
complaint in regard to the manner in
which the Central was being operated by
the Terminal Company. He read the
reply from Gen. Alexander, in which no
satisfaction was given the complainant.
Mr. Erwin asked if Mr. Crawford rep
resented the Terminal company or Re
ceiver Oakman.
The receiver is not a party" said Mr..
Crawford, Il do not represent him, but
the Terminal company
''CUTs NO FIGURE"
81 find that soon after the Rowena
Clarke bill was filed both the Central and
Richmond and Danville came into court
valid" said Justice jackson.
That's no longer question" Mr.. Err
win replied, That's just my position,
The lease has been determined valid
This $50, 900 of stock may be small, but it
has its rights in this court
'The only other question is, whether
these AZ 900 shares have a right to vote
under the constitution Of Georgia. and
upon this point l hold that the oath
equity rule cuts no figure, ~ in the trans
action
Mr.. Crawford, do you question the
fact that the Terminal Co, owns all
the stock in the Richmond q Dauville}n
asked Justice Jackson.
1T does not, may it please your honor"
said Mr.. Crawford. "The Terminal
does own the controlling stock. It does
not and never did own the controlling in
terest in the East Tennessee, however"
Now we get down to facts, " said JUS
tiCe Jackson.
Mr.. Erwin held that from the sworn
statements of Receiver OalIman the Ter
minal did own the controlling stock in the
Richmond and Danville, the East Tonnes
see and the Georgia Pacific, and operated
them as one property
'The records, he said "show that the
stock of the Central was held on the books
OF the Central as owned and held by the
Central Trust Company of New York 50
a stockholder going to the books would
not have known the illegality of this ac-
ton. These facts were brought out in the
investigation before the legislature
THE Terminal Company thus con-
trOlled the Central, the Georgia Pacific.
The II. 81 D., and the r. & D. and the
East Tennessee operated as near as they
could together, as one line The Undis-
puted evidence in this case is that these
lines are strongly competing lines. 1t is
shown strongly by the deposition of Mai
w. F. Shellman taken in this case, and
the facts are pndisputed. The board of
Terminal directors had sufficient num-
Der of their directors in the directories of
these other companies so that they could
carry, in these bodies, any measure that
they carried in their own, or that they
desired to carry"
SOME PUzzLING QUESTIONS.
Just here Justice Jackson asked Mr.
Erwin some questions which then indi-
Gated that the Terminal might again ex-
ercise the voting power of those ~ 200
shares. Said he:
As l understand it the Georgia Com
pany, North Carolina corporation, own
ed 10000 shares of stock in the Georgia
Central Co"
Yes, sir" said Mr.. Erwin.
''They had right to buy these shares
and sell them if they wished, didn't
they2N asked Justice Jackson
Yes Mr.. Erwin replied
1.-The Terminal company is not a ra y
road company, is it," asked Justice jack
son.
Mr.. Erwin admitted THAI it was not a
railroad corporation, but Insisted that it
owned railroad twenty miles in
length
"They have the right to own stocks and
bonds in other railroad companies then,
have they nOtlN asked Justice jackson.
MIR. Erwin said he would like to show
the court the statutes of North Carolina
on that subject, but would have to go
across the street to get them.
You need not trouble about that, "
said Jus lice Jackson "They are not
worth walking to the door for. | want to
get at the facts and then apply the law
Whe Terminal l understand, owned > POO
shares and they aftcrward acquired by
an arrangement with the Georgia COM
pany, 10000 shares more, and that has
been put in the hands of the Central
Trust company to secure an issue of bonds
of the Terminal company. Did they
nOt2"
Yes, sir replied Mr. Erwin.
"Well, now the question is whether the
ownership Of that stock constitutes a
control, which is in violation of your
Georgia constitution, ~ said Justice jack
son. 81 call your attention to a decision
of the supreme court in the case OF the
Pullman Car Company VS.. the Missouri
Pacific railroad The supreme court de
cided that an ownership of ii majority
stock did not constitute a controlling
interest, and it was decided that it should
have a right to vote"
Mr. Erwin said tbo tho ,,-or1s sscop+,.,,l