The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-29
TIE KELSEY SUITS.
Old Gas Deal Cases Coming
Up Again Arguments
and Motions.
Especial to THE Jersey city News.'l

lSpeclal to "Ehe Jersey City news
NEWARK, Nov. e. 1S9E.-The suit of
Charles A. Furbush, of Philadelphia,
against Henry c. Kelsey, of the Newark
Gas Company, formerly Secretary of
State, for breach of contract, in failure
to deliver to Furbush control of the local
a companies, before the regent CONSOLE
dation, is returnable before the Supreme
Court, at Trenton, on Wednesday. While
the suit in New Jersey has apparently
been almost abandoned, any effort to dis
continue the action will, it is under
stood, be opposed by counsel for the plain
tiffs. The suit was originally entered in
the Supreme Court in his State, but on
petition was transferred to the United
States Court of the southern district of
New York, because of complications
which it is said a number of prominent
politicians in this State feared, in con-
nection with the action.
The ease is now before Judge Town
send in the United States District Court
of the southern district of New York. To
the suit as entered Mr.. Kelsey filed a de-
murrer, and argument on that was made
before Judge Townsend week before
last. 1t is the same suit as was entered
in the Supreme Court in this State, eX-
cept that a man named James Cremins
appears as the plaintiff. The claim of
Furbush was conveyed to Cremins for
hi purpose of transferring the case.
The alleged contract with Henry c. KEEL
sey was made with John P. Persch and
Charles A. Furbush of Philadelphia,
March l. 1898. Mr.. Kelsey, under the con-
tract, it is charged, agreed to deliver the
stock of the Newark Gas Company and
the Citizens Gas Company, the then exist
ing corporations, before July l, 1893. A
new consolidated company was to be or
ganized with 81, 500, 600 capital stock, 81
$40, 900 6 per cent. cumulative preferred
stock and 81, 900, GOO first mortgage 5 per
cent. fifty year gold bonds. h pur-
chasers were to give TO the parties repre-
scented by Mr.. Kelsey the bonds, LOCO, coo,
preferred stock; 81, O00, 900, common stock,
and 81, 000,0 900 in cash. MIR. Kelsey, of
course, did not deliver the stock, hence
the suit. The plaintiffs alleged 100000
tract, and the action is brought for that
amount. In their bill of complaint the
plaintiffs allege that the property of the
Newark gas companies had peculiar value
sale of gas. 1t is stated that the price
obtained is high, While the low price of
coal and the facilities for handling coal,
owing to the proximity of the works to
the river, was such, that gas could be
made at very low cost. Since the time
fixed for the delivery of the stock to
Persch and Furbush the. two Newark
companies have been consolidated on
much the same lines proposed in the con-
tract described.
In the argument of the demurrer be-
fore Judge Townsend in New York coun-
sci for the plaintiff followed in the main
the facts set forth in the bill of com
plant. 1t was set forth hat the business
of the Newark companies had grown
enormously. Statements were presented
which showed that during the year 1891
the two companies sold nearly 500, coo, 600
cubic feet of gas. which, at S1.40 per thou
sand, meant an income of 100000. For the
600, COO cubic feet and the income S770,0 00.
A paper was presented which was ex-
ecuted by Mr.. Kelsey in which $780, 900 of
stock in the new company as now gan
lied was intrusted to United States Sena-
tor James Smith, for Persch, in settlement
of the eases, but this was refused.
Counsel for Mr.. Kelsey did not deny the
contract, but made a long argument to
the demurrer, setting forth that if the
contract had been carried out it would
tend to create a monopoly, and was;
therefore, against public policy and should
be declared void. Judge Townsend took
the papers and reserved his decision. 1t
is not known how soon a decision will be
given, as the judge is now attending to
some court business IN one of the Ohio
circuits, and will not return for several
weeks.
The action in the New Jersey Supreme
Court will not be dismissed, as it is I'M
derstood hat application will be made to
continue the case in the courts in this
State until the result of the action in the
United States Court has been decided.