The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-04-19
PLANT
WILL NOT
Be MOVED
Court Gives Decision In Case
Of The ". and S. BIacklntun
JaWsIry Company.

The W. & s. Blackinton company will
not move its big jewelry plant to North
Attleboro. as its chief stockholders, Riley,
French and Heffron. wished 10 have IL do.
1t seems that under the Massachusetts
corporation laws IL could not have done
so until after its next annual meeting
any way, as the Riley. French and Hef-
from combine have only two OF the four
directors.
The affairs Of the corporation were
pretty thoroughly aired I'm court couple
OF weeks ago. IL Is. however making
money, and IL has a fine standing I'm the
jewelry marts.
w. Sumner and Louis a. Blackinton.
during the present week, filed a petition
for an injunction against removing the
plant TO North Attleboro, under certain
votes passed by the stockholders a few
days before the filing Of the petition for
the injunction Today Judge Douglas
heard the case.
Walter r. ANGEL of counsel for the
Blackintops made an earnest argument
against the removal and in favor OF the
Injunction today. He recited the advan-
tages of Providence over North Attleboro
as a place TO make tewelry, basing his
remarks on testimony AT tne pTtNious
hearing. The present quarters were. Mr..
Angel said, the finest In the world for
this purpose the removal was simply 10
give Riley, French and Heffron chance
10 let the corporation rooms and 20 make
a profit on gas To be furnished IT,
The question before the court was. Mr..
Angel said. the action of the majority
of the stockholders I'm voting TO remove
the business oppressive or was IL a fair
exercise of the right of tho majority.
Then Mr.. Angel proceeded To show how
difficult il was for a corporation To do
business in Massachusetts. He showed
that the preliminary steps had not been
taken by the directors and that any per-
sons doing business as "a corporation un-
less they complied with the laws there
were subject To heavy penalties. He
dwelt on certain provisions. he quoted
from the Massachusetts statutes, as TO
the great liability OF members OF manu-
featuring corporations and contrasted the
regulations in the estate named with the
easy laws here.
Mr.. Angel further said that this COR
poration could not do business in Massa-
chtisetts, as the laws were strong, re-
quiring the payment Of all capital stock
ton had. though capitalized for $3.50. .eO0 a
paid I'm capital OF only $4,000. On this
account, he thought. the corporation
would be ruined IL the removal took
place.
In n corporation organized under the
laws of this state a stockholder accepted
certain regulations. and he had the right
TO expect that the burdens should not be
increased by n removal Ia another state,
Mr.. Angel argued. Such action as that
of the majority of the stockholders was
declared 10 be oppressive aud a Violation
OF the contract with stockholders.
Arnold Green. who Is associated with
Harry g. Curtis as counsel for Messrs.
Riley, French and Hebron, made Il brief
argument against Mr. Angel Mr.. Green
called attention To the fact that the
Blackinton business was for very many
years carried on I'm Massa chusetts.
Judge Douglas granted the injunction,
saying that he thought from the i'm
creased liabilities OF stockholders under
the Massachusetts laws that one stock
holder who objected 10 the removal had
a right TO have the whole matter fully
heard. The case was certainly strong
enough 60 prevent any removal until the
fulI court pasSpd llDoD the same