The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1893-04-15
ALEXANDER Al A.LI.EIlXl.lAINl A. ARTHUR
Made The defendant In a Sensational
Suit.
Bin to Recover ss7, ,S9o.-.A Big Steal
Charged.
Knoxville Tribune.


By It's sgeut, II Bartlett, and attor
neys. james G Shields and John X.
Shield, fled abillifihe United states
circuit court in Knoxville yes
terday against Alexander A. Arthur,
Of lndiapa the Island saying bank Of
Rhode Island, and c. H. Rogers, OIL
claiborne county, Tenneseee. he Oh.
ject ofwhich ito recover from the de-
fendants, A. A. Atthur and G. II.
Rogers, $S7. 2s2 with interest, which
the complainant alleges they have OBJ
tanned from it through fraudulent
means.
The complainant shows that IL il 3
corporation incorporatedand organic
ed under the law Of Great Britain,
having its chief ofice in London, Eng
land, having since IT. organization.
Within and during tho past six Year,,
been engaged IN purchasing aud de-
velopirg cosl, iron md timber lands
III tho Ststasoi Tenaessoe and Ken
tncky
At the beginning Of lis operations
in these States Alexander A. Arthur.
was itschief officer and agent 10 the
United States, uader the style q genes
raj manager, hlying charge and con7
troll Gifts affairs, property and inter-
esss Arlhnrwas accauutableouly to
the chairman aud board Of directors in
London, and he had full and ample
power to employ aud control all sub
agents, purchasing agents and attar-
nays in the purchase Of land, said
purchases being subject to the appro-
WI Of the board of directors Of the
complainant, which Office he held un-
! il come timein the month Of Decem-
ber, 1891, and during the months OF
January, February and March, 1892,
he held the Office O local consultative
agent and director.
The defendant, G. II. Rogers was
employed by Arthur asone Of the sub.
agents. Rogers was citizen OF Clai.
borne county, Tennessee, whore much
of the land purchased for the com
plainant is situated, and being a law
yer when he entered the employ Of
the complainant esrly in 1887, he wa.
engaged IN the dnal capacity Of pur'
chasing agent and legal adviser, ard
es such was IN the employ Of the COM
plainaut uptil about the fret Of Janu
airy. 1892, being paid salary and feel
for his work
The complaina says that while tht
defendants, Arthur ana Rogers, wer,
in its service, they sonfederated am
conspired to cheat and defraud it am
did obtain from it nnlawfully and un
justly,a large sum IF money by sell
ing to it lands III which they wer
Interested at exarhitant prices.
Rogers, It is charged, in 1888 pre-
cured two associates in obtsiiing ( or
tions on lands, OF the character whicl
the complainant was purchasing i
the frst district If Claiborne count,
for the purpose Of selling the same
evidently to the complainant.
The associates we're TO obtain tn
options and he Ro ers) was to max
the eales, aud the profits to be share
equally besveen the three. In thi
work they succeeded 90 well, the bi
AYERS, that tie latter part Of 1889 the
had control i q very large area ,
said lands under contracts, authors
ing them, Rogers and his assoclates,i
make sales at prices ranging from
to $40 per acre, and providing thi
they should hAve astheir compens
tiona a commission ranging from tw
andon baltic five per cent. and q
the excess over the stipulated price
which they night obiaiA for thalahd
Connlaiiiat avef- So A A Ars
and q. aogrs sgreed taas Il
thoasapd acres 81 these land sbi j
be SOD 70 ti;a ass'eeiatisti, that r sc
was TO procure hie associates to agr
10 sell 10 the association the lands
$40 An acre, which was their full ms
ket valne. while Arthur was to pr
cure she anseetof the chairman u
theboard afdireetars " the ass clati,
to luy thsm for tae .ssotiatien t9F Y
IN acreS vish an understanding a
contract that these facts were @
kept d secret hetaeen the Two, frQ
the associates d Rogers and the CO.