The Savannah morning news., 1901-02-17

planantS. To-this proceeding in the Init
60 states court your company has fle1
us answer through its attorneys, which
- INTENDED to cover all of the points OF
oeiense covered by the answer Of your
company in the case pending in RIbh
superior Court and also other points ap-
Iiicapie TO the proceeding in the United
states court but not to the suit in the
state court.
Among other things in your company's
answer to the so-called Intervention In
the United States Court is the following.
AS an additional reason why the court
should not lend it's aid to the effort now
oelhg made in the shape of this inter-
Vehtoh, this respondent believes and
charges that the purpose of this litigation
lnc4ualng the bill pending in Bibb Superior
Court' Is not a bona fide one to assert
rights on the part of stockholders, but for
the purpose of making fees. SO persuad-
ga was TINS defendant of this that on the
@'th DAY or October last this defendant
examined under open commission Robert
NJ. Farrar and Julius M. Alexander. and
tAls defendant produces TO the court a
Verined report of this testimony From
THIS 1t will clearly appear by the admis-
slons of the said Farrar that the suit was
brought with the positive agreement be-
tween himself and his counsel that he was
was not recovery for him, and that the
idea and purpose of the suit were to cause
other people to come into the litigation.
ana, in That way secure fees. Ii also
appears from the admissions of the said
tarrar and The said Alexander that no
real consideration was paid or expected
from this transfer alleged to be made nv
the said Alexander to the said Farrar;
that the said Alexander was himself uu-
willing to bring the suit and made the
transfer SO that the said Farrar would
orlng suit that he was unwilling to
bring, and that the actual truth is. the
suit was really the suit of the said Alex
ander. This litigation was therefore
started by transfer that was not made
for any equitable considerable or in good
talth, and falls within the spirit of the
rule against maintenance" The testi-
mony of the said Farrar and Alexander
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 prompt
ed this litigation. Mr.. Woodruff, who is
one of the complainants in the United
States Court suit, is not stakeholder
in your company, and has not been, so he
alleges, since about May, 1893. 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 Mr.. Woodruff sold his stock ne
also. by written instrument, assigned
to the purchaser all rights which he had
to such dividend as he now
claims. Just what representations or influ-
ences have caused Mrs. Amelia C, Brown
of Covington, Ga, to join with these
complainants in this litigation we are
not able now to conjecture. II is distinct
~ stated in the so-called intervention
that her claim. individually and as exc
cutrix, against your company amounts to
S366.66. Should this suit be successful to
the extent as claimed, it is certainly true
that Mrs. Brown would not receive any
dividends upon her stock for a period of
about two years, and possibly not for two
and half or three years. She owns in
dividually and as eXecutrix SIS 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 divi-
dends for as much as two years she
would lose thereby the sum of $685. /.
e., the difference between $3.50 and 1856. 66.
II she were deprived of these dividends
for two and a half or three years the
loss would, of course, be much greater;
and, In addition to this direct loss to
her-not to speak of the expense to which
she would. necessarily be put in the car
rying on of this litigation-if such ca
p lamity as success could come about, the
stock held by her, if indeed she should
hold it, would probably depreciate in its
market value not less than Is per cent.
and probably it would depreciate much
more. We cannot believe that this good
woman has been honestly advised in this
matter. 1t is also true that, If this suit
succeeds, the AleXanders and Mr.. Solo
mons the other stockholders, would, as
such stockholders, lose far more by it's
success than by it's failure. The only per-
son among the complainants who could
possibly gain anything, upon the theory
Of the compliments so-called interven-
ton, is Mr.. George W. Woodruff who is
rot a stockholder and it is 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