The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-04-09
SUES ON CONTRACT.
Anthony Brothers Ask $2525 From
Graham Equipment Co.
They Were Engaged TO Float $40, 900
Worth of Stock.

Before Justices Stincss and Tillinghast
was heard today the suit of Anthony
Bros. against Graham Equipment Com
pany To recover S2o25 for violation Of n
contract. The case was an interesting
one for the reason that the plaintiffs
| formed "A special partnership for the
promoting" Of $40, 900 worth of the stock
| OF the defendant company There is a firm
OF the same n, III now compose Of the
same men as formed the promoting
syndicate that exercises the duties incl
dental to the profession of architects
| Another point of interest is the value the
| court will put upon tho literary ability
brought into action In the getting up of
prospectus that was "a lengthy effort.
J Frederick III. Anthony who was the
! principal active party In the plaintiff
| co-partnership testified that in Novem-
| ber 1894, Mr.. j. II. Graham of the de-
| fondant company had IA talk with bim
about the placing of some stock of the
! company and on the 18th OF the same
month witness met Mr. Graham and Mr.
Greenvillc = A. Gardiner in the office OF
the company in the Industrial Trust Com
pany At this meeting Mr. Graham,
who was president of the company, i'm the
| presence of Mr.. Gardiner who was secre-
tary and treasurer of the concern, told
him that If he would place $40, 600 worth
OF the stock of the company he would be
paid 20 per cent.
Mr.. Anthony said nc was very particu
lar about the value of any stock he might
take 60 manipulate and asked that pub
lie accountant examine the books of the
company and all necessary information
might be placed in witness hands The
information was given ald the accountant
engaged and few days alter the second
Interview Mr.. Anthony was handed
prospectus by Mr.. Graham. Mr. Anthony
Thought the prospectus showed him paid
too much attention to the mechanical de-
tail of the ladder the company was max
ing and not enough attention to the
financial side OF the business, which latter
struck Mr. Anthony as promoter to be
the most important
Mr.. Graham noting the Importance Of
the objections raised to his literary effort
had Mr.. Anthony draw up a new pros
pectus. This duty Of drawing up the cir
cular Mr. Anthony claimed was laborious
one and required the examination of
many papers. and took three weeks work.
IN which day or night interfered not at
all. In answer TO questions by his counsel
he said he would not do the same work
again for $500 but when asked To say just
what the work was worth said $500 The
new prospectus suited all parties 1000 were
printed and Mr.. Anthony says he was in
strncted to mail them. He spent $25 for
postage stamps
When 10 Of the new prospectuses had been
mailed Mr.. Anthony testified he demand !
eel copy OF the letters patent on the inn |
proved ladder that ne understood was tho |
company's main claim To having good |
scheme. After little DELAY he got tbe !
patent and saw that the Graham Com |
pany did not own the patent, but that IL |
was owned by the CO.. solidated Railway /
supply Company. Thi was explained |
and 600 copies of the iospoctus were sent |
out.
Mr.. Beagan, counsel. here offered the |
wrlffpn for m ,la - a..
stock, which was the same us above 4
stated, and il YVES admitt,A notwith- |
standing the objection Of Mr.. Gardiner of |
counsel for the defendant company. Most |
OF the circulars were sent TO bankers ard |
about % or 30 men were interviewed
In February, 1895. Mr. Anthony received
letter from Mr.. Gardiner the secretary
OF the company, saying that as he had
not disposed Of the stock as he agreed TO
IN 30 days the company would cancel tho
agreement ana withdraw its stock fror-
the market, Mr. Anthony had hen a
that George W. Stafford had been SO d
stock after this letter had been sent ana
denied that he bad ever promised to dis
pose of the stock i'm 80 days.
On cross examination Mr.. Anthony
said be was formerly hat marufactutcr
ana hnd never written a PROSPECTUS he.
fore. Since he tried to serve the defend
ant company he had had several offers !
TO act as promoter but had declined.
lie SAID nc was familiar with the prices
charged for writing a prospectus
Charles Anthony corroburatcd his
brother as - the verbal agreement in re-
e ,rd to the stock manipulation.
lirccnyilie :. A. Gardiner was the first
witness for the defense He testified
iat there was nothing on the records Of
The company TO show it's officers were au-
thorized 10 issue stock and the board of
directors had never given them that priv
liegc. He said no agreement was made
with Mr. Anthony To pay for the cir
culars.
George W. Stafford testified that he
obtained bis stock i'm May. 1894
Mr. Gardiner i'm his argument I'm behalf
d the defendant company claimed the
Dilicers were never ordered 60 issue any
'tock or 10 enter into the agreement
n mCd t6at the prospectus was "A poor
niair ana that IL there was a contract the
plaintiffs, as was the custom OF brokers.
were bound 90 pay all the expenses Of tie
placing of tho stock.
Mr. Mitchell Of the firm of Bassett &
Mitchell, argued that there was a contract
hat had hccn broken and the plaintiffs
we're entitled TO compensation for their
abOrs
Bassett q Mitchell and John p. Bea.
ian Tor plaintiffs and Comstock a. Gard
Ter ana John +. Canning for defendants.