The times., 1900-12-29
AN OLD FIGHT RENEWED.
Affairs of the Mutual Insurance
Company Again in Court.


The fight which has been waged for
some time between the officers and stock
holders of the Mutual Fire Insurance
Company is again brought to the at
tention of the public. Yesterday a bill
in equity was filed by Jesse B. Wilson,
Andrew Archer, Charles n. Lehman,
Frederick A. TschffTely, jr, and Samuel
II. Walker against George T. Dearing
George c. Walker, Timothy W. Murphy,
R. II. Johnson, W. A. II. Church, l..
Pierce Boteler, and the Mutual Fire in
surance Company, asking that the court
enioin the defendants from refusing to re-
insure their property in the defendant
company for the year 1901 and from re-
fusing to allow them to vote as policy
holders at the approaching annual cleo
tion to be held on January q.
The bill covers about twelve typewriter
pages and states that the defendant COM
pany is corporation duly chartered by
Congress having a place of business in
this city; that the defendant Boteler is
the secretary of the company, and that
the other defendants are members of the
board of managers thereof. 1t is al
legged that by the act of Incorporation
the policyholders are members of the
company and that the complainants have
interests therein amounting to about
$4,000 worth of insurance, for which
they deposited their premium notes and
III some instances paid premiums for sew
eral years in advance; that each policy
holder is entitled to a vote at the ap-
proaching annual meeting, for each risk
held BY him; that each of the complain
ants have for many years been active
members of the company, and the com
plainant Wilson was for seventeen years
and the complainant Walker for cne year
the president of the company, duly elected
and qualified.
1t is further alleged that notwithstand-
ing the fact that none of the complain
ants have ever been guilty of any act
for which the charter or bylaws author
ICES policies to be cancelled they were
served with notices upon the 18th and
18th days of March, 1900, informing them
that the defendants proposed to cancel
all policies held by them at the expira-
tion of ten days from date; that on the
22d day of March they secured an injunc-
tion from the Equity Court enjoining such
action on the part of defendants OF which
the latter had immediate notice, and
which, II is claimed, is still in force
but il is averred Notwithstanding the
Injunction, the defendant Boteler, either
OF his own volition or at the instigation
of his co-defendants. upon the 23d day of
March, entered the policies Cancelled upon
the books of the company; that this
action was taken within the ten days and
after the issuance of the injunction, on
which account it is claimed to be void and
of no effect.
1t is also alleged that. though the COM
piainants have made tender of their pre-
miuns for the year 1901, the defendants
have refused to receive same, and it is
charged that the defendants have con-
splred to defraud the complainants of
their rights and prevent them from TAX
ing part in the coming election
The court is asked to enjoin the defend
ants from continuing the entry OF can
celation upon their books. from refusing
to recognize them as policyholders, and
from refusing to allow them to partlci-
pate in and vote at the annual election
The petition was presented to Justice
Bradley, who granted temporary re-
straining order and fixed January next
as the date for a preliminary hearing.