Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-10-22
Trying to Have the Bay State Gas
Receivers Removed.
SERIOUS CHARGES BY AFFIDAVIT
Distinguished Array of Coun-
r-- sci in the Case.

States court yesterday morning to lille
Rffidavits alleging that j. Edward
Addicks. Parker G.. Chandler and
Charles H. Kittinger, representing the
company. are in contempt OF court, in
that they have refused to give up the
books and papers of the company. Mr.
Foster oil counsel stated that the papers
had not been found, although search
had been made for them in five States.
He alleged that the books and papers
had been concealed, and said he had |
affidavits to prove the allegation.
James @. Carter, in behalf OF Mr.. |
Addicks, denied that there had been
any contempt.
There being an inference that SER
vice had not been made on parties con-
cerned, United States Marshal Lam
nan stated that he had served all of the
summonses placed in his hands,
In the contention which arose about
the affidavits which Mr.. Foster asked
leave to offer, ex-senator Higgins of
counsel for the receivers, said that they
had nothing to do but submit the
aflidavits.
The aifidayits would have consumed
considerable time in reading, and Mr..
Foster was permitted by Judge Wales
to give the substance of the papers,
which he proceeded to do. lie re-
viewed the action OF the courts in the
several States in appointing the re-
ceivers, and stated that in one OF the
affidavits it was alleged that Charles
III. Kittinger had boosted IN an inter-
view with representative of the New
York Journal that the papers had been
removed from this State; further, that
that papers correspondent in this CRY
had said last night that be would make
affidavit that the statements had been
made to him by Mr.. Kittinger. but this
morning he refused to make such
affidavit. Mr.. Foster read from the
article in the New York paper, and
while the reading was in progress, the
papers correspondent, who was present,
denied that Mr.. Kittipger had made
the statements to him. In telling the
substance Of the affidavits, Mr.. Foster
said that the receivers had searched
for the papers in Delaware Penn
sylvania, New Jersey and New
York, and they could not be found.
An effort was made by Mr.. Braman
to see Mr.. Addicks in the Hoffman
House, New York City. but he refused
to be seen. Mr.. Braman saw Parker @.
Chandler, a representative of the Bay
State Co.. however, and he said he
papers further alleged that Mr.. Addicks
had employed people to circulate false
reports, and that P. G. Chandler in
New York on Sunday afternoon called
together number of reporters and told
"Baron Munchauseno story. The
receivers had been informed that Mr..
Chandler, counsel for the company,
had given the information to the re-
porters. Mr.. Foster consumed but a
short time in telling the substance oil
the afiidavits, and Immediately after.
ward leave was given to file the
affidavits, and the court granted rule
requiring Messrs. Addicks, Chandler
and Kittinger to appear at 10 O'Clock
this morning to show cause VIII,
they are not in contempt of court.
Following the granting of the rule
Fl. II. Ward of counsel for the Buy
Estate Co. made motion that the !orde
appointing the receivers be reviewed
and that the same be annulled and thu
receivers discharged.
He said they were prepared to answe
certain portions of the bill, whereupol
the Judge said the argument would b.
allowed to 60 on, and If facts appoa
in the affidavits, ample time would b
given to deny them. 49,
Mr.. Garter of counsel for Mr.. Ad
dicks, in opening, said that in hi
9pinion the action was begun agains
the company for some other object tina
those which appear on the papers them
selves. He wanted to know on wha
grounds receivers had been asked fol
In reviewing the bill he said Their
we're three possible grounds. Their
were allegations of solvency; that MI
Addicks was a holder OF lncom
bonds and has charge on the incom
of the company and that the incom
should be put in the hands OF receivers
that there had been Encouragement
the company's affairs. he contenoe
that the company is not ipsolyent, an
that the applicant, William Buchanan
ia not creditor, except so far as he
the holder of an income bond and wi
be a creditor in 1889. He stated thi
there are but few debts, amountir
only to about $4,000 or $1,000, viii
the assets are ample to cover all u
debtedness. In regard to alleged mi
conduct on the part OF directors OF II
company, Mr.. Carter held that to
no ground for application of receiver
with an extraordinary exception. 1
cited the mowers of the company
make contracts and do business co
nected with the manufacture and So
of gas and gas machinery. he a
serted that the company has life OF
years before it and held that e
present action is to kill the company
He said that charge of fraud whi
is unsupported, recoils on the origin
tor. He also srated that Mr.. Addic
does not control the company, as
does not own majority of the stoc
He alleged that when the capital sto
of the company was recently increas
from So, 600, 900 to Sl5, 600, 600 Mr.. q
dicks was not the beneficiary; all
the stockholders were appraised OF
transaction and were given ample
portunity to participate.
Mr.. Garter alleged that while
plaintiff had asserted that there
fraud, the proof was not offered.
Mr.. Carter reviewed the history
the Bay State Gas Co. by starting "
the plan for consolidation of the BIOS
companies in 1884. He said the ?
jectors hit upon the plan that :,
stocks should remain with the M
camille Trust Co. of New York, to
main there until they were paia
the company to issue certificates
the stocks to be pledged for paymen
the certificates. He said it was
intention that the Bay State 20
Delaware should eventually become
owner OF the stock. Coming dow