The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-11-07

The fight among the stockholders of
the Ajax Mining company was to some
extent aired yesterday in Judge Hiles'
division of the Third district court
The case came up on the petition of
Samuel Mcintyre for an Injunction to
prevent Henry NJ. Ryan and Frank
Knox from voting OF disposing of $4,000
shares of the capital stock of the COM
pany, standing in the name Of Henry
NJ. Ryan, and which Mcintyre alleged
properly belonged to the corporation,
and should be conveyed into the treas
ury as treasury stock.
Judge Henderson and Mr.. J. J. DAILY
represented the plaintiff, and Judges
w. H. King and Street appeared for
the defendants.
First a demurrer to the complaint
was argued and overruled and then
the hearing on the petition for injunc-
ton pending the trial came on.
THE PLAINTIFFS SIDE.
The suit is brought by Samuel Nc
Intyre and the Ajax Mining company,
w. S. Mccormick, II. M. Ryan, Frank
Knox, George A. Lowe, William H.
King, William c. Nebeker and George
II. Robinson, directors of the COM
pany, are made defendants.
In the complaint it is set up that
the plaintiff owns $4,000 shares of the
capital stock of the Ajax company, and
he brings the suit on behalf of himself
and all the other stockholders: that on
and prior to April l. 1896, Henry Shields
and w. 1. Snyder Were the joint owners
of $1,000 shares of stock in said corpo-
ration and also had a claim against the
company for nearly $4,000: that the
Ajax company, by its agents. entered
into a contract with Shields and Sny-
der by which they disposed of and set
tied the said claim and that as a part
of the contract and for the same con
Sideration Shields and Snyder also re
linquished their right and title to the
$4,000 shares, and that the claim was
paid by deciding the Cobb tunnel and
eight acres of dump ground all OF
which was supposed to be worth Si2 Coz
and was estimated in the trade at that
figure, and together with $4,000 in cash
went in payment of the claim and the
stock
1t is then alleged that at the time OF
the transfer of the stock, for the pur-
pose of concealing the true nature Of
the transaction, a small amount OF
money was paid or obligations were
taken up to small amount personally
by Ryan and Knox, the whole amount
of which did not exceed $4,000 al
though at that time the $4,000 shares
Of stock were worth from GOO to S24-
coo, the purchase of the stock beina
fraudulent and the settlement of tbs
claim being made simply TO cover the
purchase of the stock, when in truth
the consideration received by Shields
and Snyder was for both the claim and
stock together, the entire consideration
being $4,000.
Plaintiff then says that when the
stock was delivered it was not placed
in the treasury or made part of the
assets Of the company, but was taken
by Ryan and Knox and placed in the
name of Ryan, who Hypothetical it to
the defendant Mccormick upon an in
debtedness due by Ryan to McCor-
nick
Plaintiff prays judgment that Ryan
and Knox be required to deliver to the
corporation the $4,000 shares and thai
they he in the meantime restrained
from voting the stock or selling or dis
posing of it.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER.
The defendants, H. NJ. Ryan. Frank
Knox and the Ajax company. filed sep
arate answers denying every material
allegation of the complaint, and Mr..
Ryan sets up aff1rmatively that he
purchased the stock from Shields and
Snyder months before the settlement
was made with them by the company.
and that it was bona fide business
transaction.
Mr.. Ryan then alleges on fnforma-
ton and belief that Mcintyre has made
the charges as contained in the com
plant for the purpose Of depressing the
market, so that he may secure d con
trolling interest in the property at a
low figure. 1t is also alleged that Mr.
Mcintyre has several suits pending
against the company, and that it would
be to his financial advantage to secure
control Of the company in order tc
effect a more favorable settlement OF
his claims.
The right Of Mr.. Mcintyre to insti-
tute the action is also questioned, il
being denied that the company and
board of directors had refused to bring
the suit. In the same connection il is
alleged that Mr. Mcintyre never fur
nished any evidence upon which a sui;
could have been brought.
Mr.. KnoX's answer sets up substan-
tally the same matter as alleged b1
Mr. Ryan, except that the transaction
was more largely within Mr. Ryan's
knowledge.
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
AT yesterdays hearing w. 1. Snyder