The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-05
Replies tn Questions Made by Mayor
Taggart and Sterling Il.
Holt.
CLAIM MADE BY PLAINTIFFS
THOUGHT THEY WE'RE GETTING IN
"ON GROUND FLOOR"
IL Company Had Been n Success Tag
CART and Holt Would Have
Made $4,000 i'm "a II

Superior Court, yesterday the transcript OF
the examinations of Thomas Taggart and
Sterling r. Holt, defendants in the suits
brought by Cortland c. Van Camp, Harry
Schurmann and Edward J. Robson last
October for the cover of money alleged
10 have been illegally obtained through
manipulation in organizing the Indiana
Hedge and Wire Fence Company. The
plaintiffs each asked judgment for $3.50.
They asserted that Taggart and Holt pur-
chased the rights for manufacturing and
selling the fence in fifty-two counties in
Indiana of Edwin r. Millett. of Louisville.
According to the complaint, it was agreed
that the transaction should be kept secret
and that Millett should act as their agent,
using his influence to sell the letters of
patent at advantageous terms, for which
he was to receive one-tenth of the pur-
chase price for compensation.
1t was charged that Taggart and Holt
then represented to the plaintiffs and sew
eral others that Millett had a good thing
in the letters and that they could be pur-
chased for $4,000. A company was or
ganized and stock TO the amount of $4,000
was subscribed, Taggart and Holt repre-
s~enting that they, too. subscribed an
amount equal to that of each stockholder.
The face value of each share was to be
$4,000. but the stockholders were 10 pay
but $1,000, payable in two yearly notes of
$500 each. When the first notes became
due. it was alleged, Taggart and Holt
represented to the other stockholders that
Millett was clamOring for the aymen of
the notes. In the meantime the company
had made sales in Clinton county and taken
up notes from farmers amounting to s46,-
SIC. The plaintiffs allege that these notes
were deposited with the Union Trust Com
pany in Indianapolis instead of in a Louis
Vile trust company, as represented by Tag
CART and Holt. In payment of the first
note it was charged that Taggart and Holt
induced the stockholders TO turn the Clin-
ton county notes over to Millett, together
with a sum OF $3.50 from each stakeholder
in payment, upon the condition that the
stockholders should sign a bond demni
ing Miilett against JJss.
When the second notes came the plaintiffs
claim 1t was again represented that Mflett
was clamorlng for payment of them, and
also the Clinton county notes, which were
worthless. BY an arrangement of which
the defendants are alleged to have been the
promoters an agreement was made and
each stakeholder paid to Millett the sum of
$1,000 and turned over their share of stock.
THE ALLEGATIONS.
The complaint alleged that Taggart and
Holt We're the owners of the company and
patents right at all times, Millett having
transferred his interests 10 them prior to
the organization of the company for 1872. 900.
and that all payments made were turned
over to Taggart and Holt by Millett. The
company was first organized in 1895. The
agreements between Taggart. Holt and Mil
lett were not discovered unit several years
later. The plaintiffs then demanded pay
for the $3.50 cash they ask for
$1,000 paid at the last settlement, the SlS6
paid at the first settlement of the first
notes and for interest. They allege that
Taggart and Holt paid to Millett So. 900
for the patent rights and then told the
plaintiffs and other subscribers to the
stock that they would put them i'm on
the ground floor in organizing a company
tor $500 to carry out the project, and
that all the time Taggart and Holt owned
the entire stock which they claimed to the
plaintiffs they could buy at s.. 900 a share
from Millett and all, including Taggart and
Holt, would be on the same basis.
The examination of Taggart and Holt
was made last June. but the transcript was
not filed until yesterday. Mr.. Holt signed
the transcript of his examination but Mr..
Taggart, although having had a CODY of
the examination for many weeks. claims
he has not had the time to read ii through
and did not sign ii. The transcript of the
making the examinations Attorney Noel
lnterrogated the two men, especially Tag
CART. with regard 10 their connections with
former concerns of a like nature.
Mr.. Taggart was asked all about the or
ganization of the Indiana Hedge and Wire
Fence Company and his connection with
Mr.. Millett. He said that he first conversed
with Mr.. Millett regarding the Indiana
hedge fence business about the first of 1895.
Associated with him, he said, were Mr..
Holt, Mr.. Harseim and Mr.. Foor. At the
first meeting held for the purpose of open
ing negotiations Mr.. Taggart testified that
Mr.. Millett said he had the right of fifty
hedge fences, and he offered to sell an in
terest to Holt, Harseim, Foor and himself
for $4,000. Mr.. aggart admitted that they
purchased nine-tenths of Millett's entire
interest, the Sc. 900. the purchase price. be-
ing paid partly in cash and the rest in
notes.
PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
Mr.. Taggart was asked why the stipula-
ton with Millett that he should retain the
one-tenth interest was not set out in the
original contract instead of putting It in a
separate contract. He replied that there
were two or three agreements made at the
same time, and did not know hat it made
any particular difference.
why was the consideration expressed
at $1O0.0O for the nine-tenths IN the agree
ment instead of s~S2.cOO?' asked Attorney
Noel.
My impression on that is simply that It
was a nominal sum put In when we COM
menced drawing up the papers" replied
Mr.. Taggart.
so If you ever had to xhibit the bill of
sale you did not have to expose the actual
transaction
You might take 1t tina way"
Mr.. Taggart was asked If the letters pat
ent had cost only $4,000 when they were
finally transferred at the date of the COM
pany's organization. and replied I'm the af-
firmative. He said he expected the COM
pany 10 be organized first. to transfer the
stock To Millet I'm lieu of his rights in In
diana. and Millett would transfer back to
the people the amount of stock for which
they had subscribed.
II will ask you To state if Mr.. Robson
did not ask you and Mr.. Holt at that time
an additional thing that he wanted to
know. and that was whether or not you
and he and Mr.. Holt were going in on the
same basis?' asked Mr.. Noel.
THAT question was not asked me by any
body replied Mr.. Taggart.
Did YOU ever state to Mr.. Robson or
Mr.. Schurmann, or Mr.. Van Camp, that
you had any interest In the patent right
before they We're conveyed to the corpor-
atom"
NO. sir. I never did"
You never revealed 10 them. or either
of them. at any time hat you. or you four
the letter patent before IL was conveyed to
the corporation
No. sir"
DO you know whether or not they knew
you had?"
Il don't know whether they did or not.
They never discussed il with me"
If II had not been a secret is il not like
" that in your communications with them
u would have come 10 their knowledge that