New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-10-25
SUES FOR A BIG COMMISSION.
HENRY HBNTz As IS $4,000 FOR ALLEGED SER
VICES IN AIDING THE FORMATION or
THE AMERICAN SUGAR RE
FISINT COMPANY.

The trial Of an action brought by Henry Hentz
against Theodore a. Havemeyer. Henry o. Have
meyer. Frederick Havemeyer and Charles H. SeuIi
10 recover S22jo0o commissions for his services IN
the consolidation Of the companies when no"
form the American Sugar Refining Company was
begun in the Supreme Court yesterday before Jus
tice Andrews and a jury Horace r. Demins APP
peared for the plaintiff The defendants were
represented by John f. Parsons and Austen o.
Fox.
The plaintiff alleges that he was Intimately ao-
ouainted with all the details OF the sugar business
and with the sugar rehners and operators through
out the country He was sent for he AYERS os
the defendants In 1885, when the subject or inc
consolidation Of the sugar interests was discussed
Many conversations were had between nm an"
the defendants who preached the matter ana
suggested the ACCESSIBILITY Of the amalsamauoh OF
the firm of Hayemeyer & Elder with other 'o",-
panies. These negotiations went on, the paih'Hl
alleges for period Of nearly three years, when
he was finally asked 10 bring about the consohda-
ton Of the different sugar refneries. For MS ser
vices he was to be allowed certain share IN the
interest Of the defendants at the rate or per
cent on their stock.
Flo alleges that Havemeyer e Elder together
with other companies, signed certain instrument
known as deed Of trust tor the purposes oil the
consolidation board of eleven. with power 10
Increase the number to thirteen, was formed 70
take charge Of the matter. and HaVemeyer q
Elder received q certificate for $li323W~ Wheu the
new company was formed. In 1871 and 1892 an
other company was formed. known as the Amer
lean Sugar Refining Company, and the defendants
received sl500o@o.
Mr. Parsons on behalf OF Henry .. HaVemeyei'
denied that the negotiations between the de-
PENDANTS and Hentz the result OF any over
lures on their part alleging that Hentz onereu
himself as volunteer. and never performed any
valuable services as far as the consolidation WAS
concerned lie also alleged that the hTst com
uanv which Ifentz declared formed as a re-
eulf Of his eXertOus suuSol uenlly N''id'lN ~
be Illegal and that Hentz could not tnetel9ie 81,
any case claim commissions for Els alleged Se'
vices ,Iocee WAS
similar suit Henry o Havemeyer aliegGs, MdS
brought by the plaintiff in lsss, and is sun pe""-
ing and undecided. ,,-, 40 o. v.it-
ness In his behalf, and told Oh ms in',si 10
with Henry O. HaVemeyer ana OF nus plpS ~
Pniladeluha 10 get the sugar rehheiy ,iet 49,
fon I'M Inc new combination. lie sdu 'h M, W. T.
was some friction between him ana joan FL
s4arles who afterward became 'rcdsultl on ny
American Sugar Refining Company nu' '' 49,, 80
consequence Of endeaVOrs 10 DrllS ANU ae,,,rssd
-ilitt,,n he met Seares with whom he dlscusseu
soarlee according to the plaintiff, SAID "ne. PEI.
,hav had settled their differences, IL uoe3 Ia,
nake any difference about old HaVemeyer- WI"
...a maj vou ger your commission anyway 49,.
Henry O Havemeyer. Hentz sWoIe Sa.n ~ tin
,Crasion q,hon they were discussing the tolmdtyL
Rockefeller to take an interest IN Ih5 llno, ,,or
The plaintiff explained that Old iNo' ~ -
was John D. Rockefeller Ihe case mas ''''
finished.