The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-01-10
should question it, as it IS substantiated
by the affidavit of Mr.. st. John?
THAT sCHARGE:OF FRAUD.

''Thcy charge fraud" said Judge Cross.
but such charges must be snhstan-
tiated when The charges are denied.
Here they assert that disclaimer is not
sufficient in this case. The consolidation
cannot take place unit! legislation permit
ting it is passed. They claim, said
Judge Cross, that they fear the consoli-
aation may take place, and III an under
hand manner. yet they know that this IS
legally impossible and something that
could not be done. and knowing this they.
ask for an injunction. Why? For stock
jobbing purposes; that they can manip-
uate the market; and hope your Honor
will not grant the restraining order pray
ed for. which would be unjust.
After a short recess argument was
again resumed by Judge l.. L. Lewis.
of Richmond. counsel for the Seaboard,
who stated that it was his intention to
deal with the legal points involved.
Judge Lewis stated that an injunction
was only granted where .irreparable dam
age would be done by the act complained
Of He could see no instance In which
the petitioner would be injured, but that
the consolidation would prove u great
benefit TO the people in general.
JUDGE LEWIS SCORES.
There is not in this bill distinct al
legation of fraud or any facts stated in
the bill which would constitute fraud. ;"
The court claimed that unless fraud
was alleged and proved that court Of
equity could interfere. He also point
ed out that fraud was absolutely denied
by the defendants.
Judge Lewis contended that as there
was no case made out III which fraud
was alleged that the court would not
interfere.
''Mr. Williams has made every >prOpo-
s;tion looking toward an amcablc set
tlcn:en1." declared Judge Lewis, land in
regard to the sale OF stock, the attorneys
for Mr.. Ryan do not deny the rights of
directors to secure stock in the corpora
ton which they represent, and the cases
that have been cited by them, and upon
which they rely, are all cases in which
fraud was alleged and proved.
'.Tfen there have been some allegations
made that Mr.. Williams and others would
profit, receive some compensation for
their services in the plan of consolida-
ton. Why should they not. Is the lab
orer not worthy of his hire? Would Your
honor occupy the bench without renlu-
ne.ation? Yet they claim that this should
not be done. and l pray that your nonor
will refuse to grant an injunction OH the
case that has been presented"
THE PARTING SHOT.
Mr. Bernard Carter followed. closing
the argument. He stated that by the
ownership by the Seabcard and Roanoke
OF tie majority of voting stock i'll the
Raleigh & Castor the Seaboard & Roam
oFe ,.as alb to control the entire sys-
tenn. .Thsre is not a syllable in any of
Mr. Williams manifesto, or numerous
affidavits that have been filed
where Mr.. Ryan IS ever quoted as say
ing that he was at any time in favor of
the plan, as proposed by Mr.. Williams.
TIE buying in of the Savannah. Ameri-
Gus and NIcntconery Railroad. later
known as the Georgia and Alabama. its
mortgage. by Williams, Middendorf and
others, its inability to pay interest on the
bonds. and later sale under foreclosure.
and its being bought in by Williams,
Aiiddend5rf and others WAS reviewed at
length by Mr. Carter.
He also reviewed the formation ola
syndicate composed of Williams, Midden-
dorf and others to purchase the controls
n. interest in the Seaba ard
In answer to the charge that Mr.. Ryan
on E'j~l,th Pa cro