The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-02-23
GROSS fraud ALLEGED
SMALL STOCKHOLDERS WANT RE-
CEIyER FOR GREENFIELD LINE.
Ii Is Claimed that the Men I'm Control
OF This Line Ignored the Rights
of Others.
THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
COMPLAINT ABOUT KIRKPATRICK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
Ii Was Favored I'm the Awarding of
Contracts-Other Matters In
Local Courts.
THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
COMPLAINT ABOUT KIRKPATRICK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Alleging 1rauQulenL misrepresentation OH
the part of the men who now control the
affairs of the Indianapolis & Greenfield
Rapid-transit Company, the minority
stockholders in the corporation have filed
suit for receiver for the road and de-
mand an accounting Of it's affairs.
Suit is brought by Eugene saulcy, George
C. Webster William N. Harding. Alfred
f. Hovsy. Nathaniel n. Morris. John J.
Cooper, Charles NJ. Cooper and lone b.
Black. The defendants named fol-
lows: Christian NJ. Kirkpatrick, Francis G.
Banker, Elmer ]. Binford. Nathan c. Bin
ford and Lorenzo z. Mcdonald. The
plaintiffs allege that all of them sepa-
rateIy hold $4,000 worth of the stock of
the company. When the company was or
ganized the defendants. they claim. were
appointed to look after the financing of
the road.
Following the appointment of the defend
ants the statement is made that the de-
PENDANTS proceeded to finance the road
through Denison, Prior q Co., bankers, OF
Cleveland. That institution agreed to fur
nish $3.50. 600 to finance the road if in return
IL should receive 100000 in first mortgage
bonds. But the committee, so the petition
for a receiver alleges, declared to the
minority stockholders, the plaintiffs, that
the Cleveland banking house demanded
100000 in first mortgage bonds and in adj
dit!on $4,000 in second mortgage bonds
and $4,000 in stock. AS result. 1t is al
legged, of the representations Of the defend
ants the capital stock of the company was
then raised to $4,000.
CONTROLLED THE COMPANY.
Then, it is claimed. the defendants re-
tanned for themselves $4,000 in second
mortgage bonds and $4,000 in stock which
they said was desired by the Cleveland
house. With the 100000 in stock which
they owned originally they then controlled
the affairs of the company. Then, it is
alleged, they organized the kirkpatrick
Construction Company and gave it the con-
tract for building the road Although the
petition says the work OF that company
not up to specifications, it was accept
ed by the defendants then in control of the
affairs by majority of the stock obtained
through alleged fraudulent representations
The organization of the Indianapolis &
Eastern Traction Company followed. 1t
was engineered so ii is said, by the same
persons that composed the Kirkpatrick
Construction Company and who are named
In the list of defendants. OF the new COM
pany, NJ. B. Wilson, j. w. Chapman, c. E.
Coffin and f. NJ. Fauvre were named with
Z. j. Binford and Lorenzo Mcdonald as
directors. The four first-named. 1t is al
legged, are stockholders i'm name only,
Binford and Mcdonald having the real con-
troll. The new company proceeded to take
over the affairs of the Greenfield road.
The petition for a receiver states that
Mcdonald and Binford, general manager
and treasurer, respectively, of the road,
have made no accounting of the earnings,
which are supposed to amount to sos, 636. 16.
A receiver is asked to take charge of the
Greenfield road; damages are asked on
account of alleged fraudulent misrepre-
sentation and for losses said to have been
Kirkpatrick Construction Company. The
amount of manages asked is about $4,000.
The petition sets a number of al
legged incidents where the Kirkpatrick Con-
struction Company did not comply with
the contract. 1t is charged that the speci-
fications required that the east end of the
line should extend to the Morristown pike
east of Greenfield, but that work stopped
this side OF that point and the company,
controlled by the defendants, excused the
construction company from completing the
road. The same charge Is made regard
ing spur at Philadelphia, a small town
five miles this side of Greenfield. 1t is also
alleged that the switches on the main
line were not properly constructed so that
there have been wrecks. to the personal
injury of passengers and employees and
damage TO the property.
Il.
On this account IT is asserted the traction
company was PUT to a large expense for
repairs. In paying out money In settlement
for personal injuries and finally replacing
all of the switches at an additional ex-
pense to the company. The company has
tried TO make Spring Lake Park, near
Philadelphia, an attractive place and re-
sort of amusement at a loss of $4,000, the
petitioners claim. Another paragraph sets
out that the kirkpatrick Construction Com
pany was awarded the contract for build
ing a switch TO the park at 5000 when 1t
could have been constructed for 81 900.
There are other minor charges made in
volving the constructions company and the
plans were carried out the plaintiffs say,
because the defendants controlled the COM
pany.
1t is alleged that all of the inside work
ings of the alleged conspirators were kept
secret and that the minority was misled
from the time of the negotiations in financ-
ing the road TO its construction and the
giving of stock TO the stockholders i'm the
indianapolis and Eastern Traction Com
pany. 1t is also charged that accounts
were kept of the receipts, that the con-
ductors were instructed to not make a rec
ord of the business and that the plaintiffs
do not know where the surplus has gone
nor have they any means of knowing.
Another charge in the complaint is that
the defendants willfully neglected to COM
ply with the companyS franchise for
right of way along the National road TO
knightstown, I'm Hancock and Henry coun-
ties and also of the streets of Knights
town. and forfeited them 1t is alleged that
the defendants then interested themselves
in the Indianapolis and Eastern Traction
Company. which afterward secured a fran
chise over this same route.
In addition to the accounting asked and
the appointment OF receiver the petition
requests that the disbursements made to
the kirkpatrick Construction Company for
additional work not included I'm the contract
be refunded TO the company, and that the
defendants also pay TO the company an
amount sufficient to cover the cost of con-
struction that was not completed. with
which the construction company was given
credit, and for deficient work. The court
is also asked TO declare null and void the
$4,000 second mortgage bonds and the
$4,000 stock now alleged 10 be in the hands
of the defendants.
Drahata Corrf Co.o-