New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-03
THE RUBBER TRUST SUES
SEEKS A MILLION DOLLARS DAMAGES
FROM GEORGE H HOOD
OF BOSTON

Financial circles were greatly surprised yester-
day over the announcement that the United
States Rubber Company, in addition TO two &C
items brought in Providence against the estate
OF Joseph Banigan for alleged damages aggre-
eating $1700O0O had brought third suit the
last being in the Supreme Court, against
George H. Hood, of Boston. for damages in
S1.000.0O0
1t was learned yesterday that in the first suit.
brought in Providence against the Banigan es-
tate, the complaint in which has not yet been
served, the charge is made that in the appraise-
ment of some Of the factories which were
bought by the Rubber Trust the appraisers were
paid S200000 it is said. to fix the value OF the
plant at exorbitant figures. In this way it is said,
the Rubber Trust paid for some of these plants
& figure far in excess Of their real value, and the
discovery of the alleged fact. even after the
death of Mr.. Bangan two or three years ago.
has prompted the Rubber Trust to seek redress
in the courts. Only the preliminary wrts have
been served in the Providence suits yet. and
it was said yesterday that the full nature of the
charges with reference to the alleged bribery
the part Of the persons concerned in the ap
prasement of certain rubber works will not be
made known before next May.
The latest suit came TO light yesterday, when
Paul Sheldon of No. % Broadway filed petit
ton in behalf of the United States Rubber Com
pany, Of No. 10 Murray-st., making George H.
Hood the plaintiff in a suit for 81 100000 dam
ages.
POINTS OF THE PETITION.
The petition says that the defendant, George
H Hood the owner Of the majority OF shares
of the stock of the Boston Rubber Company.
sold his holdings to the plaintiff. the United
States Rubber Company; that the defendant
agreed the time Of the sale not to engage
aiD in he anne busnaSs in
of the States of the United States, save Nevada.
Idaho and Montana, and that this agreement
was largely responsible for the purchase Of his
holdings, which would have been less valuable
If he had not made it.
1t is charged that the defendant did, however,
engage extensively in the rubber goods business.
and had employed more than 100000 of money
paid him for his holdings to such an end there
by damaging the plaintiff in large sums
The defendant is charged with having In 1880
become interested in the Hood Rubber Company
a Massachusetts corporation, and, it is alleged,
that he has by his direction built up that corpo-
ration's business until it is now more than 81
100000 year, all OF which, 1t is alleged, violates
his agreement with the United States Rubber
Company, made at the time Of its purchase Of
Mr. Hoods holdings OF stock in the Boston Rub
Der Company.
This, it is charged, has cost the United States
Rubber Company business worth many millions
of dollars. which it would have received had the
defendant lived up his agreement, and that
fl has damaged the plaintiff in a large sum, ex-
ceeding 81 900 600: that he has made other large
4 profits which he should be made to pay over
to the plaintiff. The Court is asked to enjoin
the defendant Hood, from the further manu-
facture or sale of rubber goods, either directly
indirectly in all the States except the three
mentioned above.
fo- haa,
ing quarterly dividend Of 2 per cent on its pre-
ferred, and at the rate of per cent on its COM
mon stock a quarterly dividend is payable this
month and when Charles r. Flint, of the Rub
Der Trust, was seen few days ago he said
that the company in a prosperous condition.
A few days ago there was a sharp break in the
price OF the securities in the Street, and there