The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-09-09
A LONG ANSWER FILED
BY THE CAPITOL SYNDICATE TO
MRS. BABCOCKS PETITION.
Explanation Of Why the Contract Com
planned OF Was Made and
OF Other Matters.

Fort Worth, Texas, September ST. NJ.
and c. b. Farwell Of Chicago have he1
their answer to the complaint Of NJ irgarei
Ann Babcock ct al against the Capitol Free
hold Land and Investment company, max
Ing general denial Of most OF the allie
cations contained in that petition. II will
be remembered that ON the application II
Mrs. Babcock and others Messrs Fuqua
and Goode were appointed receivers for the
Capitol syndicate company few weeks
ago This receivership was vacated upon
the Farwells Ming bond and the mun-
/ agement of the company, the largest cat lie
ana ranch property In the Uuited S at,s
continued In It's regular business manager
Nj. A. G. Boyce
The answer covers forty-two colsely type
written pages. 1t states, among other
things that the company was organized
under the Companies Act Of the Kingdom
OF Great Britain, In 1885; that there are
nine members Of the board Of directors.
three Of whom reside In the United States;
that the executive head Of the company,
Wh" Is called the chairman OF the board of
! directors Is Right Hon John Young OF
Btltast. ana that the secretary Of The com
| pan{ Is IL Miner WINS ~ London Eng
lahd The defendants admit tina, they own
a majority of the capital stock o, the
company. but deny that the Officers and
! directors have in any way been innu need
/ ~ the defendants or that they have ,Xcr.
! ciSPu over SAID Officers or directors any I'm.
proper or fraudulent influence. or that h
/ directors have been in any way suhserNlent
% the interests OF the defendants or neg.
! iectiul q the interests of rue cor GRAFTON,
/ but on the contrary have at al times are
ruiz conserved its best interests.
The answer denies hat the dcfen lants
! did or could dictate to the company the
contract that the company should make,
ior the reason that, according to the by
attached TO the pleading 1t Is not i'm
! proper Tor the directors to deal with the
comP9ng but the bylaws nroo,gide TINT IN
| directors with the company that the d.
! rectors shall not vote for the company in
respect Of said contract, and II they as
sumo to vote the vote viii not be counted
| ana the offending director sh II be fined
f2c. and that this bylaw OF the company
unct OF which the plaintiffs compl in.
Tic answer gives history of the con
trait between the company and the defend,
! mus who are called the syndicate, and
alleges that John v Farwell and Charles
3 Ferwell furnished all the money to
/ buld the Texas State capitol, for the build
ing Of which they received 1900. 900 acres
| Of land IN the Panhandle OF Texas part Of
the controversy In the suit; that after the
acquisition Of the land the Farwels es-
taDhShed thereon a ranch IN the years Of
1850 1856 and 1SS7, and expended more than
$2,noO000; that during the time of the con
struct!on OF such capitol and after the
Organization of the company. said com.
pany Issued its debenturc bonds in the
SUM OF about S5,0oo000 in United States
currency which bonds YRYere hoated In
Grcat Britain: that from the time of the
establishment of said ranch up to the
present. the ranch, by contract with the
company. has been managed by the mem,
bcrs of the syndicate; that the 100000
deberture bonds Issued by the company
were maturing in the years OF 1892 and
1908. and the company had no funds to
meet these bonds, and the time of their
maturity was a time OF great depression
nos only in Texas, hut everywhere else;
So that II the bonds had been foreclosed
at tina, time the property would not have
been realized from the foreclosure, to pay
the Indebtedness so that II was absolutely
,ccAesarv Tor tbc eocuritv of tho shore.
holders. including the plaintiffs In the case
as well as the debenture bondholders, that
some person or persons Of financial credit,
should guarantee the payment OF the In
tetCSt on these bonds in order that the
/ time OF payment might he extended: that
the syndicate guaranteed the payment of
the Interest of the bonds, rs they were
required to do by the debenture holders,
In order to get an extension of the lndeOt-
thH scoring of the debentures ultimated In
the last contract of which plaintiffs com
plain because the debenture holders de
n.lpded, before they agreed 10 an extension
= Of the time for the payment of the bonds,
that the company should pay no dividends
until III" bonds were paid; that about THIS
/ time. too Il was discovered that, owing 10
Unprecedented death loss in the Panhandle
| yelf before. and In a mistake OF brand
, Ing. there were lacklnE &Doul oV'VN' as
many cattle on the ranch ms the parties
supposed there We're: that In the making
Of tile contract Of which plaintiffs com
plain, dated In July, 1894 the company
was represented by its chosen solicitor
Frank Crisp Of London, and that the de
hchturr holders We're represented by MIR
RawlinS an English solicitor, and the con
tract was O result Of protracted nesotia
tiors between the company, the represen
tatiyp Of the debenture holders Snd th'
syndicate and that In the making of th'
Contract the syndicate did act for the com
pany; that the action of the company Il
l the making of the contract was agreed e
; b. all the stockholders Including the plain
iirfs. that the contract Is fair In every
respcct and is more favorable than am
5 other person was willing TO Or would make axe,
tract there was an Indebtedness owing e
tht syndicate by the company OF near!
81. 100000: that this debt was settled a
the time the last contract was made
: IL, addition TO this, the answer contain
ssyerai pleas of limitation, OF non-tonde
of parties and Unconventional demanl
agnfiist the plaintiffs for. procuring the az
4 nointment OF receivers In the case with
ont notice to them on an ex-parte hearing