The morning news., 1897-03-02
oIDN'T KNOW IT OWED MONEY.
,ou,,ER CLAIM BY THE EAToNToE
RRANCH BONDHOLDERs.

.oudment TO Their Petition
,-,,.d an the Superior COurt-Fhe
,uadle Georgia and Atlantic's An
"a the BondhOIders' Petition.
wo,v of the Allegations In AttOr-
VESTS Bill Denied-The Case
comeIp Again March 13.
Arguments were not heard yesterday in
-.a7dsnce with expectations on the case
Guilmartin and others against
,rddle Georgia and Atlantic Railroad
-.,orv and the Central of Georgia
poiIa,av Company. but on account of the
.,-ogements of the attorneys interested,
"a for other reasons the case went over
nntil Saturday, March IS.
The plaintiffs to the petition filed an
..,andment to their suit yesterday, the
Elements in which are practically de-
,,o5 in the answer filed by the defend
~ the Middle Georgia and Atlantic
romnany but which will probably be spe-
.ieoallv denied in an amended answer.
Tho allegation in the amendment filed
yr, Mr. Charles N. West, representing
.bo bondholders of the Eatonton Branch
r,ilroad. is that before the guarantee Of
tbo Middle Georgia and Atlantic upon the
po+on+on Branch railroad bonds was ex-
.,o,tad and that road delivered to the de-
fondant his clients were assured that
tbera was no debt on the Middle Georgia
md Atlantic railroad, except some small
debts for equipment. They were told,
he states that there were certain bonds,
mt that they were not outstanding, or in
inc retained in the hands of the central
committee of the company. The amend
ment states that the contract by the
Fatonton Branch people with the Mid
die Georgia and Atlantic was made on
their faith in the statement that the
Middle Georgia and Atlantic was free of
debt, except equipment debts, and that
had not these representations been made,
they would not have entered into the con-
tract.
The answer of the Middle Georgia and
Atlantic Railroad Company to the Gull
martin petition is a long one, and goes into
the details of the recent transactions of
the company. It practically states at the
outset and explains how the Eatonton
Branch railroad stockholders knew the
guarantee of the Middle Georgia and At
Iantic Railroad Company on their bonds
was worth nothing, because they knew
tEldt Lllc NlluulC NtUlEld anu y lldilllC vas
bonded for $4,000 a mile, which was about
double its value, if not more. 1t is also al
legged that both reads were in a very bad
condition at the time, and that improve
ments amounting to $4S, 1860 were put on
the property thereby enhancing the val
ue of the securities of the Eatonton
Branch people.
The answer also states that Mr.. Chas.
N. West, who was president of the Eaton
Nrs..
minority stock amounting to 77SA shares,
to the Central of Georgia. 1t says the
agreement was necessary to the operation
of the Eatonton Branch railroad under the
circumstances, and that the Eatonton
Branch bondholders might have relied on
the fact that the Middle Georgia and At
lantic would do all in its power to promote
the interests of the twenty-one miles it
had between Milledgeville and Eatonton.
The answer denies great many of the
allegations in Mr.. Vests bill, among 9TH
ers that the Eatonton bondholders relied
on the guarantee of the NJ. G. and a., a
thing impossible because, it is stated, they
knew it was bonded for double the amount
of its value.
1t states that the property was sold to
the Central for 5000 mile in bonds to be
issued by the Central, a total of 1851, ,000 of
which the Central is to retain 81, COO mile
for betterments. and the trustee under the
mortgage to be made is to retain $685. 600 of
the bonds to be distributed to the bondhold-
ers OF the Eatonton Branch road, the full
par value of the present securities held by
them in bonds of the Central, after which
the balance or $S4S,OOO of the bonds will be
distributed among the bondholders of the
Middle Georgia and Atlantic. These bonds,
II Is stated, are not to go to the company,
out TO its creditors the bondholders, who
Il Is stated have nothing to do with the
Si6SVJO Of the Eatonton Branch nor the
|o9'O0, which will be retained for better
ments. The answer concludes with the
statement that the Plaintiffs have no right
10 ask for the relief they seek, and the
court is asked to decide the matter for the