New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-16
SUIT AGAINST UILLIAM STEINW4Y.

IT GROWS OUT OF THE RELATIONS OF THE
PIANO FIRM AND THE HAMBURG ENTERPRISE
The suit OF Henry w. 7. Stelnway against William
Steinway and Stenway & Sons. after being for over
two years in the courts. during which time il has
been twice the General Term orders has
finally TO trial before Judge Slower in the
Supreme Court. The suit is in equity. and for
accounting. the plaintiff having recently got a
decision in his favor in the he brought to break
the trust In the Will OF his uncle Theodore. This
case relates 70 the business relations between the
New-York firm and the Steinway Fabrlk in Ham
burg. which started 10y William and the late
Theodore Steinway to help along the London and
Continental business Of the firm.
The complaint in the case sets forth that the
plaintiff is a stockhos1er In Sieinway & Sons. Will
lam Steinway being the president and principal
stockhOlder. II says that IN 1850 the defendant
and Theodore Steinway started the Steinway Piano
Fabrik in Hamburg. Germany, and that from its
formation until lSss it selling pianos in compe-
titiOn with the house in New-York.
IL is alleged upon Information and belief that dur
ing the years stated the corporation Of Steinway
& Sons sold to the fabrik parts Of pianos at cost
or below cost these parts being shipped 10 Ham
burg. and that part OF the product OF the fabrik
then sold back TO Stenway Sons at large
profit for the OF the London house Of the firm
The defendant is accused Of fraudulently aiding
and directing this business and is also accused Of
diverting large part OF the foreign business OF the
corporation 10 the fabrik.
None Of the other stockholders the trustees
have Joined in the suit with the plaintiff.
George W Cotterill representing the defendant.
puts in a general denial in answer. In his address
TO the Court Mr. Cotterill reviewed the services OF
the defendant to the firm and said that II was al
most entirely through his efforts that the Steinway
pianos have achieved their present fame. In 1879
the London house was started and on account OF
the labor troubles and other causes II was found
that II not relieved In some way me Lonloh mouse
would 20 to the wall as the prices for manufacture
ing were 50 great here that the pianos could not be
sold at a profit on the other side Hamburg. being
a port OF free entry then chosen by N4illam
and the late Theodore place 10 establish lac
tory ana they invested their private fortunes III
the enterprise. knowing the damage that would re-
suit 10 the entire business II the London house went
under. Theodore preached the subject to the De
PENDANT and the latter Invested $4,000, IN me
plan which was a success. After the death or the
elder brother William. not being able 10 give ms
time t. the foreign business. sold II 10 a corpora
ton. He also said that II the corporation dld hCt
find IL a profitable Investment ne would take il
back in three years II was q profitable invest
ment however. and 1t is alleged that the planiln
regularly received his dividends from the foreign
business thus added TO that OF the corporation, anu
made no objection to receiving the amount
Mr. Cotterll moved 10 dismiss the case on me
pleadings it being claimed that mutual releases hai
Judee Stover refused to dismiss the pleading.
and ordered the trial to proceed Tine case th"n
went over until tomorrow