The morning call., 1894-07-28
ILLEGALLY HELD.
That Stockholders Meet
ing at the Bank.
WHAT q. P. KEENEY SAYS.
important Affidavit in the
Peoples Bank Case.
FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT.
A Stakeholder Wants DeImas and
Shortridge Reinstated as Well
as the Old Directors.
FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT

= An important affidavit was filed in the
Supreme Court yesterday in the proceed
ings taken by the Peoples Home Savings
Bank against the Superior Court to SET
aside the acts of Judge Hebbard as illegal.
1t was the affidavit of G. P. Keeney, a
stockhoider and one Of the old board OF
directors, recently turned out of office.
The points made by the atfiant are First
That on April 1S, 1894, Messrs. Delmas
and Shortrldge were appointed attorneys
Tor the bank at a salary of $4,000 a year,
OF which One-half was to be paid down and
the other half in half yearly payments.
Their contract was for one year of service.
Then the affidavit recites The proceedings
taken In the Knight, Goldtree and Bank
commissioners cases, and the proceedings
taken by Delmas and Shortridge to be de-
clared attorneys for the bank, and to set
aside the appointment of James Alva Watt
in that capacity. 1t is asserted that the
old board of directors was removed and
the substitution of attorneys made, was
not properly called and therefore illegal :;
also that it was held in violation of the in-
Junction resting against the bank.
1t IS set forth IN the affidavit that at this
meeting ). NJ. ShOrtridge, legally repre-
senting the bank, Strenuously objected to
tes, but no attention was paid 10 him. and
the vote was taken. resulting in the expul-
sion OF the directors. 1t will be remem-
oered that the claim was made that DIR.
JenulngsOn did not come by his stock
properly and had not paid one dollar for
his shares. He was out of the State when
the meeting took place, but his vile came
down and voted the stock.
1t is stated that 1869 shares in all were
voted at This maaL.ng 0t which 7ldd
voted In favor of the resolution removing
the old directors from Office. DeImas and
ShOrtridge claim that 1880 of these shares
were illegally voted, and as to the rem main-
ing 1878 shares IL is not known whether
these were legally voted or not, for the
stOckbook was not produced at the meet
ing. In any case 1t is conteBded by the
aftiant that no more than 1919 shares were
voted in favor Of The resolution. mum Der
which is 14345 short of the requisite two
thirds of the capital stock required to
carry such resolution.
In regard to the case of Joseph Winter
burn, who himself owned only 100 shares
in ne bank, it is charged that James Alva
Watt represented to WinteTburD tina, he
had full charge of the Knight. Godtree
and other suits against the bank, as well
as those brought by the bank, and that il
he (Wlnterburn) would agree to vote In
favor of the resolution ne on his part
would undertake to have dismissed the
suits against Wlnterburn. The affidavit
charges that Winterburn, acting on Watts
representations, voted in favor of the res
olution his own 100 shares and $500 more
which he held by proxy, making 260O
shares in all.
In a word, the affilavit of George P.
Keeney declares that the old directors are
still In office and have never beer legally
removed. 1t is also claimed that James
10, H. -,
for Delmas and Shortridge as the banks
attorney, and that John L. Sneehan was
never legally appointed secretary and
manager of the bank. The ffidavt asks
that lbese appointments be set aside, and
that the old board of directors be reiu-
stated in Office.
In conclusion it is asked that General
Sheehan he required TO produce the books
Of the concern in court to prove these
alleged facts, Sheehan having at the pres
ent time all the books and papers belong
ing to the bauk under his Immediate
pOntr0l