The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-02-22
A'lAREN LOSES ONCE MORE.
BRITISH cola aHit COURT DIS.
SOLVES III. Rof mi >trleN.
The New Purchasers ef the Mine
offered Pay MeLaren for His
stock Precisely the Same as Wns
Paid for Ihe rurner stock.

SPECIAL Uz,path ~ sha Post fnteli. ecnccr.
ftssSS} AND. H. - Ato. =. Air. JusIcs
Ntftln ll tsst @alrruae ecuft '1as rendered
a 8ecfs}aa l t7e now Ne.coT&icsi 1njunctsea
case aI Noi>arsn ~. sac i.e Ro. Mjuins
an3 >mesi.ng C2mlany. waleh ap.e@1rs
hereunder.
J. Barnet. Mel.aetn IS .ae heager % s.oel
shsres AKA csatf outstanding s3Archesa-
~ ntsSe ue "a i3ta} 81 e s,s3 shares Mo
f@tren abtata.l sn ft1ant .sca tr0an judge
}a31f@ri. ~ thc United Stsse~ c5:cait court
fa ~xatNe. WatcA Ras Atssaaved cp t@e
aeaFtnS \ temporary .nJuuc, on against
tne transfer 80 the property wss after
0a9,js na3s5ae3 srom Judge Fgag0sr. II me
SUPERIOR Qourr @. Washington bar Is ia
una Tsies>o }at hs.ss also boea dissolved.
The plaintiff tac0 Sought re,tef IN she
COURTS mere. sua tae C3~a Was heard on
TrF}ay. A. 3ne cla=zs 81 The hearing Ire
jsf.El a@utS a8eTyi "a gay sAe plaintiffs
,be Same aInoant for their SHARES tFisi had
h,ca g.i4 ~ tae Turner au8 fcNson sa-
teeosts. Ehss offer Nas refused TJe re-
sU,; og The refusal s. ihe dissolution 81 tho
injunction, and jhe plaintiffs are TOW out
o5 court ana Che meeting far the transfer
= stock con uoW be held
The decision s. as follows:
The po.n. wAsya. iUr4ug fh@ argument.
mel "a bc strongest ia favor ~ the
planting * application 10 continue the in
prgessive Proceedings on tAe part os the
defendants. amounting it WAS URGED. 30
What the court eneali regard ats setg.d.
on the pafl 81 gae defendant company
eoy s0ch .utg1tioa Mas nof only dis
claimed bu. on tae other hand she court
VAS ..Skti 10 1raw the Inference from the
anslasas Tiled i3at She plaintiff Nas en-
aeavoTsnw. ny rtSQFting 10 These proceed
in&s a; a critical stage cf the floating ~
the neN enterprise, "a compel tho dcfeua-
arts IN buy 0ut ae plaintiffs interests at
an enormous figure. Az the close ~ tho
argument tke cCHnael Tor the company.
AS az evidence of the willtususss 81 his
clients - deal fairly with this plaintiffs.
offered his undertaking 90 purchase tho
p3aia rs ShGrcs 81 a sNta which would
- tie average price paid for the shares
~ the Turner and Ieyton interests. this
liz MAS prepared 10 do ia tbs event az the
court (setns NJ the opinion that IL Was
FAIR and iuet tba; his clients should make
Sssch an lmpcrtaH; concession.
This Offer has Impressed me favora5iy.
ana ! am of iJe opinion that II she PLANT
RS werc 20 refuse g. Il would he neither
iust nor equitable for me 80 continue an
injunction which wogld 30 pfe iadiclaliy
afte>, jli, welfare of The company ] may
ada that under all the exceptional cir
cumstauces 81 this case. I should even
without tass undertaking. have had dr.
gcalty in coming n ihe conclusion that
the Injunction should lie continued. and
IN my opinion. Inc understanding pre-
SCENTS a hapgy solution uf the difficulty
which hsS ARISEN between taySe paFtIsp'.
My decision IS therefore tha} coiHseis
Undertaking having been given above
Expressed the motion - continue th.s in
junction Will bc refused