Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1895-05-17
.ADDlCKS WINS AGAIN.
He Gets a Favorable Decision
In United States Court.
no RECEIVER FOR THE BAY STATE

Judge wales DIssolves the Restraining
order Against the Gas Esgnats's
Company aud Refuses 60 Grant Yrs-
lIminary Isjunotion-Tsxt of the De-
cisioD.
The papers In the application of
Thomas b. Mcdonnell, holder OF stock
In the Bay State Gas Compsny, for the
appointment OF a receiver for that com
papy and the granting OF preliminary
Injunction, together With the answer OF
the defendant ] Edward Addicks, to
the bill OF complaint, were handed to
Judge Wales, yesterday afternoon, with
out argument, neither Mr. Spruance nor
Mr Ware deeming 1t necessary.
Among the papers attached to the
answer were two hffidavlts by Mr.. Ad-
dicks and others by William H Miller,
secretary and treasurer OF the Bay State
| Gas Company. and Henry O. Denning,
vice pi esldent Of the Mercantile Trust
| Company, OF New York, which give an
exhaustive analysis of the affairs assets
and liabilities of the company.
1 At ~ o'clock noon TO day Judge
| Wales handed down his decision In the
| Gaze He said that he had looked over
the papers, aud saw no reason 30 change
Il The Views, which he entertained then.
Messrs. e. G Bradford and w. CSpruance
representing the petitioner and d. II.
| Ward representing ]. Edward Addcks
were present Mr. Bpruance said he
wished to have corrected the statement
in a morning paper that he had either
secured adiournments or bad desired to
feet an adjournment at this hearing.
The text oft decision WAS as fol-
lows;
This is an application for a prelimi
nary injunction and the appointment Of
a receiver pendente lite The bill was
ed on March 30, 1895 and on motion Of
oomplainants soliciting restricting
order Was issued pending the disposal Of
the application. The defendant is q
corporation and the complainant Is
! largely interested as holder OF Its stock
and securities
The bin charges fraud and gross mis-.
! nanaRement la ths business OF the
! defendant, conspiracy to dsfraud, apscu-
lation BY its officers with its securities
and insolvency to the irreparable injury
I OF the complainant and other stoekhold'
ers and that unless an Injunction Is
granted they will be without any
adequate remedy
Tnose charKes, II established, would
2 afford sufficient ground for the granting
OF the application, but tle only evidences
= 10 support them at the present stage OF
y the auit consists Of the affidavit Of tbs
& complainant and the expRrte testimony
! Of two oiher Witnesses The answer o.
Y the defendant corporation made unde
= oath directly sndlspecihally denies eacl
and every charge contained in the bill
y and is corroborated by the afhdavits 0
the secretary of the defendant, and Q
the vice president OF ths Mercantil
Trust Company, OF New Yolk. which !
= concerned ia many of the transaction
4. set forth IL the bill
"a The charges may DO true or may b
u false, bus on the papers thus far pre-
4 sented TO the court there is wanting tna
N satisfactory evidence to make out such
M clear prima facia case as would warran
" a court CT equity in granting the appl
cation. preliminary Injunction
always harsh ana severe remedy and
only allowed where the court has u
~ reasonable doubt Of the propriety an
ID justice
The defendant, while rot denying
~ large Indebtedness, clsims that It's asset
\ exceed its liabilities In the eum Of near
hi three million dollars The decline In u
~ mar ket prices Of its stock and securiti'
Is accounted for by the gener
decline OF values OF like properl
throughout the country. There are I
ne outstanding judgments against It Al
en- the only suits now pending against It a
as those instituted by this complainant,
.r- This decision Is not conclusive OF u
er present suit, which will now take
lie. regular course and abide the result Q
tn the Hual hearing on bill, answer 81
proofs.
Mr. Bradford warmly congratulate
Mr.. Ward on the result. and spoke
EN- warm terms Of the scholarly aud Gle
me manner In which he had presented
ihe side Of the case.
led There is still another suit, brought
ng Mr.. Mcdonnell against the Bay Sta
Gas Company In New York but Il
believed that no further action will n'
be taken.
rst The clerk OF the court was directed
out enter an order dissolving the restraint
on order and to The effect that the preli
TO inary Injunction and application for
receiver had been refused Word v
sant 10 Mr.. Addicks In Philadelphia
: Mr.. Ward.
ne