Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-03-21
COUDERT SCORES ADOlCKS.
Bay State Gas Co. in the New York
Supreme Court.


Stock of the Boston Gas Co. Said to he
Improperly Withheld From the Della.
ware Concern--NIr. Addicks' Methods
Another injunction Suit.
NJ Y. Herald.
The Bay State Gas companies. as various
corporations controlled by j. Edward
Addicks are known, were directly con.
cerned in two motions argued before Judge
Patterson, in the supreme court chambers.
yesterday. Lawyer Frederic Il. Couderi
asked the judge to continue the temporary
injunction obtained last week by George
A. Smith, bondholder, restraining the
Mercantile Trust Co. from voting ON stock
it holds as trustee.
Mr. Coudert said tine acknowledged
| father of all the concerns was j. Edward
Addicks, who had wished to distribute his
| paternnl influence between his unruly
children. Thinking that it was to the bes.
interests of Ill the companies, the Boston
company built 100 miles Of main in Boston
| and Addicks received the capital stock of
$500 coo and also bond of Indebtedness
Of Si,500,000, The Delaware company got
possession Of this bond and the stock OF
! the Boston company, and these were the
sole assets OF the Delaware concern, oil
which it paid dividend of $45U,000 on
S25O0,o0O oil stock that had been purchased
by persons who relied on the assets in the
possession of the company,
lit appears" said Mr.. COudert, "that the
Legislature of Massachusetts found fault
with the way the Boston company had
loaded itself with this debt. and Addicks,
without consulting the bundhclders or
stockholders, took HIS bond Of a. 500, 0O(
and turned it over TO the Boston company
where 1t WAS Cancelled. Now. the question
will be- was nothing received in return
There was. Addicks, on Gancelling thu
bond. received 81, 59O,10l OF the stock 81
the Boston company, the stock being in
creased to this extent !!ut 10 whom, by
right did this stock belong? 1t is mani
fest that if the Delaware company was tn,
rightful holder Ut this bond. and that il
was properly cancelled Tor this Sl,5J0,OI
of stOGE, then the Delaware company
should have the stock that was issued OF
the cancellation Of the bond. Bat it never
got one cent of this stock. The result il
that whereas on Il certain date we nCld ,
bond Of 81 $4,000 of valuable assets. thil
wa taken away and given to the Slercaa
| tile Trust Co.
TINS was because Of other operations it
: gls stock, another company helug formeS
IN New jersey, that without regard II
f geographical Huuo.ieS was called Tue Bay
| state tiAs CO. OF New Jersey This com
1 plny became the base OF operations, M,
Issued SOMA ten or twenty millions u
, GOudcrt, lIrcn,heticallv, "if makea mis-
1 take IL the eXuct figures, us either ten q
5 twenty millions are all the same To ne
/ both are impossible iigurcs TO my mind
/ Nov We make no charge against the truS
company, which is probably aeting III tn
= hest faith, hut We claim that we have tn
e right 20 Join the transfer
4 Lawyer Alexander spoke for the defend
+, ants. lie smld THAI for the purposes of III,
, injunction the plaintiff might rs well hNv
J. put III several bianl; sheets OF paper Il
. those that were put IN.
Z. There Is hut one statement i'll
=. that is not ma,lc on information and bt
{ lief, lie continued, land that is the ON
: where he says that he holds a certai
amount Of bonds II is well known tina
5 IN injunction Will not issue where all til
d allegations are made on information an
= belief. There is no proof that Mr.. Addick
% dominates the cUmpany, but it is col
IS tr0lled by men of the highest Commerca
II standing in New York, Philadelphia an
s. other places.
d Judge Paterson reserved decision an
II heard an argument made by Roger 4
e Pryor, Jr., for an injunction restrainin
a Clark, Ward X Go. from buying any MOI
y Of the stock of the Bay State Gas Co
d under pool agreement and also enjoif
y ing them from selling stock of T.. |
% Hooper IL 10. ON the Stock Exchant
unueT the RUE.
n The papers in the case say that an agre
IS ment was entered into some time ago b
re tween T. y. Hooper 4 Co., and Clarl
re Ward Il CO., to form II pool for the ptl
$. chase of Bay State Gas stock, and po
re agreement was signed. 1t is alleged tn
IL Mr.. Clark went to Boston recently ar
u, bought 1000 shares OF the stock which
d is claimed WAS contrary to the agreemel
Id and u violation of the contract. On Marc
I'd Sth Mr.. Clark rendered to the plaintiff
is $50 shares of the stock, stating that
~ bought them for the pool Mr.. Hoop
lie refused 10 take them.
Mr.. Pryor stated that the Hooper fir
was able to take the stock, but the refus
was because it had been purchased in vi
lation Of the pool agreement. Francis
he Wellman opposed the motion, Glaimil
lit that there was no intention on the part
the defendants TO sell Hooper ont und
l.. the rule. Judge Patterson reserved {
"a clsion.