The San Francisco call., 1897-10-03
The Dividends on Four Hundred
Shares Of Alaska CONNER
oial Company Stock: !.
REVIEW OF THE CELEBRiTED SUIT.
As the Case Has Been Adjusted the
Public Will Not Get an Inside View
Of Corporate Management.

Max Wassefman of Paris "a former
tockholder in: the Alaska Commercial
Company who arrived in San Francisco
few days ago and put UP at the Palace
left the city. yesterday, 1t is reported on
what seems to be excellent authority that
the disagreement between MI. Wasserman
and Louis Sloss which caused a. .sensa-
tional lawsuit several years ago has been
adjusted to the satisfaction of both par
ties, but the attorneys in the case, refuse
to be interviewed. on the subject, 1t is. ad-
mitted that negotiations for settlement
OF the trouble out OF court were begun
some time since. "A prominent citizen
who is on familiar terms with Mr.. Was
serman said yesterday: "Wasserman has
got his money and has gone away. That
is all know :aboutthe: affair." -.
1t will be recolfected that Max Wasser-
man of France brought a suit in the SUI
peFior Court of this. State some years ago
against Louis SIoss. president of the
Alaska CommerciaE Company, to com pei
the defendant TO return 10 the plain tiff
400 shares ofrhe stock of that company.
1t was allegedin the com plant that the
PRESIDENT, III Nav, 1855, informed Wasser-
man that: the leases granted by the Gov
ernme nts: ofthe United States and Russia
were about to expire, "a nd in order TO Sc
cure their renewal = would be necessary
TO interest persoushigh iii authority: and
influence. The com plant further. allie ged
that the plaintiff Il an terred to the preSi-
dent of the comp pany. 400 shares of the
stock, to be: used in the dlscretion of the
etenGant.: According the papers in
the case: the defendanu agreed to. pay $50
share tor the stock, and note was exc
cuted fert:that amount and the sum was
paid to Wasserman, The. plaintiff con-
. tended that this transaction was not gem
uine, but Was adopted. asa means OF. Civ
ing the President Of tie company the
right 10 use the stock as he saw. fit: The
papers III the case set forth that the
plaintiff and defendant were on close
:termsaof friendship atthe time the agree
meht was made. II was also alleged in
the complaint that~the sum of $32, 600 was
but sinaH part of the value of The stock.
as the dividends on the 400 shares had
am oun ted: to 500, 600. -.
In his answer. TO. these. remar k q Bile aver
ments Louis Sloss:denied that he had ever
been on terms of close relation to Wasser-
man; he. denied '1urtter that he nad
spoken 10 the plaintiff about renewing the
leases: of the company. Or had said. anv-
thing about interesting persons high in
authority or in fuence.- The answer averrei
that the purchase OF Wasserman's stock
at SS0per share, was a bona-tide ~iransac-
tion, and that The amount, $32 600. had
been paid.
1t. is shown in the papers of the case that t
the A4aska Com mereial Company in MAY,
1891, failed TO renew the leases with the
United States and Russia. and that the
stock was not returned to Wasserman.
The. case was assigned to Superior Judge
Trout for trial. The: Judgment of the
court was that Nj AK Wasserman should
take nothing and that judpm OF dis
missal be entered. This decree was regis
tered in April, 1895. Thereupon Dorm &
Dorm, counsel for the plaintiff, appealed
from the order of the Superior Court and
last June obtained from the Supreme
Court decree reversing the Judgment of
the lower court. The noDsuit in the