Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-03-24
BANCROFT HISTORY co.
It's Affairs to b. Investigated by The
Courts.
CHARGE AuAlSsr THE HISTORIAN.
Ills Friends Accuse the Other Side OF
Conspiracy with Intent 10
Defraud.

Financial matters connected with the
publication of books by Hubert Howe
Bancroft, author Of "Nstive Races OF
the Pacific States" "History OF the
Pacific States" (tho latter including
history OF Utah) aud other works, have
been for n long time In a rather mui'
died condition. The affairs OF the
Bancroft History company, says the
San Francisco Chronicle, are TO be aired
In suit brought by George II. MorH-
son against n. j. Stone and others, In
which the plaintiff alleges conspiracy
between stone, J. l.. Hebert and A. >.
Latham. On Monday a Jury was
occurred and next dsy the trial Of the
suit commenced. Thv entire morning
was occupied by opening statements
OF the two sides, II. Il. Mitchell telling
the plaintiffs side OF tho story and j.
G. Campbell. coached by tho associate
counsel for the defense, Patrick Reddy,
explaining to the Jury what they pro-
posed to prove.
Campbell's opening statement was
rather startling In It's nature. In
replying TO MIR. Mitchell hs asserted
that deep conspiracy was entered Into
by the president OF the Bancroft com-
pauy and the plaintiff. He described
II. IL. Bancroft rs mas who
worShiped but one god, the god OF gold,
ana said that while IN Mexico he con-
splrcd with Morrison 10 rob Stone OF all
the wealth which years OF Industry
had Melted shim.
The suit IL quite "a sensational one
and the testimony promises To develop
some rather startling facts II II IL II not
cut short by non-sult, which IA the
end to which Messrs. Campbell and
Reddy are now devoting their entire
efforts.
The plaintiff, who IL a stock holder,
director and vice president OF the
History company, charges that N. j.
Stone, while ho occupied the position
Of vice president engaged In conspir-
acy with j. IL. Herbert and A. Il
Lothian, who were interested In the
corporation In minor capacity,
to deiraud the corporation. for
their own personal aggrandizemert.
Aiorrison's allegations are TO the effect
that stone organized the Pacific Pub
fishing company, and with the mid OF
the other two defendants turned over
the business OF the subscription and
serial department Of the Bancroft COM
pany to the new company. AS this
was the most profitable branch OF
business which the History company
mad ever undertaken, the latter
suffered, and the stockholders found
their stock deprtclating In value. The
-. a.
which embodied In Its work the pub
LEGATION OF books In the Spanish
language and their sale in Mexico aud
Central America, was undertaken In
January, 1883, and since that time
sixty.eight dividends were declared
and paid to the amount Of $3.50, 900.
This valuable work, 80 Mr.. Morrison
asserts In his complaint, the defendant
stone appropriated TO himself for the
Pacific Publishing company, and
thereby the History company lost
valuable agencies aud alirge field for
the sale OF its publications. Morrison
demanded In whiting that the directors
should commence suit against Stone
for S5O,0UO damages, but they neglected
to do 30, and he commenced the suit on
his own behalf.
The taking Of testimony was com
menced Tuesday Afternoon, but 1t did
not progress very far as the attorney
Tor the plaintiff became slightly
fioOred on "A legal technirality which
Mr.. Reidy sprang on the court, and all
adjournment Was taken to give MIR
Mitchell an opportunity to look up
authorities. The plaintiff was on the
stand, anu after testifying to the stock
no possessed and the demand he made
ON the board OF directors TO commence
damage suit against Stone, Mr..
Reddy attempted TO show that the
matter was not considered Mt legal
meeting Of the directors, anu further
more that there 10 no evidence that the
directors refused to bring the suit.
"rhe minutes show" said Mr..
Reddy, "that action GU Mr.. Morrison's
demand was simply postponed Ia.
definitely, aud II tue board did not re-.
iuse to bring the suit Mr.. Morrison had
no authority to commence this
action.D
Judge Levy remarked that he would
like TO see some authorities on the
question as to whether indefinite post.
ponement constituted a refusal ON the
part OF the board OF directors 10 briug
the suit, and suggested that II 1t did
not II settled the present suit.
The case went over TIL this point OF
law could be settled.
----=e--