Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1901-02-20
ANNUAL REPORT OF
Mr. B. A. DENMARK.
Continued from First Page }

Continued from First Page)
following: GAS an additional reason
why the court should not lend its aid
to the effort now being made in the
shape of this Intervention, this respon
dent believes and charges that the pur-
pose of this litigation, including the
bill pending in Bibb superior court, is
not bona tide one to assert rights on
the part of stockholders, but for the
purpose of making fees, So persuad
ed was this defendant of this that on
the 9th dav of October last this de-
PENDANT examined under open commits
sion Robert NJ Farrar and julius M.
Alexander, and this defendant pro-
duces to the court verified report Of
this testimony, From this it will clear
lv appear by the admissions of the said
Farrar that the suit was brought with
the positive agreement between him
self and his counsel that he was not TO
paw any fee whether there was or was
not recovery for him, and that the
idea and purpose of the suit were to
cause other people to come into the
litigation, and, in that way, secure
fees. 1t also appears from the admis-
sions of the said Farrar and the said
Alexander that no real consideration
was paid, or expected from this trans
fer alleged to be made by the said Al
exander to the said Farrar; that the
said Alexander was himself unwilling
to bring the suit ana made the tranfer
so that the said Farrar would bring a
suit that he was unwilling to bring,
and that the actual truth is, the suit
was really the suit of the said Alexan-
der. This litigation was therefore
started by transfer that was not made
for any equitable consideration, or ID
good faith, aud falls within the spirit
of the rule against maintenance. The
testimony of the said Farrar and Alex
ander, above referred to, is on file IN
the office of the clerk of the superior
court of this county, and those who
may desire TO do so can read it, and
would, doubtless. be enlightened as to
the motive that prompted this litiga-
ton, Mr.. Woodruff, who is one of the
compliments in the United States
court suit, is not a stakeholder in your
company and has not been, so he al
leges, since about May, 1898, He
claims to be entitled to a dividend,
which, he alleges, accrued to him on
stock In the company held by him in
the month of December, 1892 We are
informed that when MIR. Woodruff sold
his stock he also, by written instru-
ment, assigned to the purchaser eli
rights which he had to such dividends
as he now claims. Just what represen-
tations or influences have caused Mrs.
Amelia g. Brown of CoYington, Ga, to
JOIN with these compliments in this
| litigation we are not able now to con-
lecture. 1t is distinctly stated in the
so-cRlled Intervention that her claim,
individually and as executrlx, against
your company amounts to 1866 Sc.
Should this suit be successful to the
extent as claimed, 1t is certainly true
that Mrs. Brown would not receive any
dividends upon her stock for period
of about two years, and possibly not
for two and half or three years. She
owns individually and as executrix fifty
five shares of stock. She has owned all
these shares since 1885 and some of
them before that date. If she were,
through the success of this litigation,
deprived of these dividends for as much
as two years she would lose thereby the
sum of $183 "a, i. C, the difference be
tween $3.50 and 1886 &c. If she were
deprived of these dividends for two
and half or three years the loss would,
of course, be much greater; and, in adj
ditIon to this direct loss to her-nOt to
speak of the expense to which she
would necessarily be put in the carry
ing on of this litigation if such cal
amlty as success could come about, the
stock held by her, if indeed she should
hold 1t, would probably depreciate in
It's market value not less that % per
cent. and probably it would depreciate
much more. We cannot believe that
this good woman has been honestly ad-
vised IN this matter. It is also true
that, if this suit succeeds, the Alexan-
ders and Mr.. SolomOns, the other
stockholders, would, as such stock
holders, lose far more by it's success
than by its failure. The only person
among the compliments who could pos
sibly gain anything upon the theory of
the compliments so-called interven.
ton, is Mr.. George W, Woodruff, who
is not stakeholder, and tits clear that
he has no legal or moral claim upon
your company.
We have stated these facts and said
this much concerning this litigation in
order that the stockholders may know
what manner of claims are made in
these remarkable proceedings against
their company, and to indicate what a
calamity it would be to their company
If, perchance, the said proceedings
should be successful. It is to be hoped
that no other stocknolder can be so de-
ceived as to JOIN in this litigation
against his or her company. Your
board has determined to resist to the
utmost the efforts of these parties,
which they are making against your
company, to establish these unreason-
able and unjust demands. We are ad
vised by the attorneys of your company
that the stockholders have no reason
to fear that the suits thus pending
against the company can meet with any
success.
The creation and preservation of this
reserve fund has more than once been
approved by the stockholders in their
annual conventions assembled. The
wisdom and propriety of 1t cannot be
QUESTIONED by any conservative stock
holder.
Touching the disposition ann distri-
button Of the large fund received by
your company in November or Deem
Der, 1895, out of which at this late day,
has sprung the litigation referred to,
every stakeholder whose address was
known-and very few were unknown
was notified lust what disposition