The morning call., 1893-09-26
SALE OF STOCK.
1t Is Prevented by a Writ
of Injunction.
STORY OF A MADEIRA MINE.
The Former Owner Resists Assess.
ment and Objects to Association
With the Doe Family.

Tie sale of s., 900 shares of stock of the
Waterloo Mining Company, because of a
delinquent assessment Of Is cents share,
which was advertised TO take place yester-
day, failed to come off because of an in
junction issued out of the Superior Court
restraining such sale. The stock in Ques-
ton belonged to John ID. Beam of MADEIRA
County. and through his attorneys. Glenn
ent. Cannon. Kline and Stradley, he flied
his complaint Tuesday, reciting his wrongs
as he sees them. He says in his verified
complaint that for long time ne has been
in possession of two mines in MADEIRA
County, known as the "Alpha No. 2" and
the "Paymaster," and held a written option
for the purchase of them at $4,000. On July
l, 1891, one of the defendants, j. NJ. Bailey,
represented to him that he would find aud
produce a man who would advance an ad-
diti0nal $4,000 to open and develop them in
consideration of receiving four-fifths in
terest therein.
The proposition was accepted, and on
July Is, 1891, he brought Milton Lam
beth, who, after examination, closed the
contract, agreeing, however. that one of
the fifths which he was to get should go
to Bailey in consideration Of his services
in finding him good thing. To simplify
nldLt6To tuHy DTRdDlZ'u a Win
a capital stock of S2000,000 divided into
| 100000 shares. valued al SO share, and
called it the Waterloo Gold Mining Com
! pany. The Plaintiff received 10000 shares
and the defendant, Bailey, got 10000 the
| 10000 shares remaining going to LAM
| beth, but as the laws of this State contend
! that q corporation without five directors
| is not a corporation it became necessary
to add two more memb bers, so Mrs. Minnie
| j. Lambeth. the wife of Milton Lam BETH
anu Mrs. Belinda s. Bailey. the wife OF
j. NJ. Bailey. had Issued TO them 10000
shares each, but it was specifically made a
condition precedent to entering in this
agreement that under no circumstances
whatever was the capital stock TO be as
sessed.
1t was not TO be a corporation exactly.
| but should be operated ana managed for
the mutual interests of all parties as CO.
partners. Under this understanding the
corporate child was born on July II. 1898.
! the Secretary of State standing sponsor.
and the mines we're conveyed TO the cor
poTatiOn, and the delving into the bowels
of the earth for rich mineral commenced
aUd the mines were develOred.
The dispositions OF the copartners were
also developed, for the plaintiff alleges his
associates soon commenced a fTeeZe-out
game, for on July %, 1923. j. NJ. Bailey
bought the stock of Milton Lambeth and
! his wife for John Doe and Jane Doe-the
plaintiff not knowing their real every day
names. On August l last the Lambeths
resigned as directors and the Does took
their places, and on the next day the Bal
! leyS and Does, pretending to act as ma
jorly of the board OF directors and utterly
ignoring the plaintiff called a meeting and
levied an assessment of Is cents a share
rayable Immediately and becoming delin-
quent on September 6.
II the assessment was not paid the stock
was to be sold on September 25 at 9 o'clock
at auction. The sale was stopped by in
junction.
The plaintiff says the corporation is not
in debt and is not in need of coin, and
there was no occasion for an assessment
Besides. the stock was in fair way of
being sold. He says that on the third day
of this month the entire stock was bonded
to S. :. Badger. giving him the option to
purchase any time before November the
stock for S75,0 900.
The plaintiff accuses the Baileys-hus-
band and wife-and the obscure Does with
''col uding and conniving together to
cheat and defraud him out of his stock"
and brands the entire proceeding as con-
splracy. He demanded of the secre tary,
Defendant Bailey, leave tO inspect the
books the other day, which was refused
him, or he would know who John Doe and
Jane Doe really are.
He prays for a perpetual restraining or
der and that the action of the defendants
as directors shall be annulled, aud for any
other relief the court may see fit to grant
him.