New-York tribune., 1902-10-02
IMPOSED ON THE COURT.
A JUDICIAL OPINION REGARDING ca.
MILE wEIDENFELD.
sCATHING DENUNCIAT1oN BY TrpGr
ANUDON

81 Paul Oct. THE text OF the decision OF Judge
Amidon, of the United States Circuit Courr en-
dered in the case Of Peter Power and CAMILLE
Weidenfeld against the Northern Pacific Railway
Company. was mads pubiJ to-day. Peter Power
was the original plaintiff in the action and nv fr
sought snjoin the Northern Pacf9- F2auvva,,
Company from transferring its stock 70 the Nrrrb !
ern Securities Company. The case came before
Judge Amidou on the application Of Camille Weld
enfield % intervene a plalnun he alleging that
he, and not Peter Power. was the owner Of the
shares of stock upon which the suit was based
Judge Amidon. after hearing arguments. granted
the application for intervention. and then dis
missed the entire suit. The important points OF
his decision follows,
Their are Two 20 SgeSv55o3,ss involved in this suit
second his rights in the case IL he Is permitted to
intervention ana order will be entered fn the
cause granting the petition Of Intervention OF Mr
I DO not do this wholly out OF con sidera1ion for
MS. 'oHduct ~ coHAtcuoh WIN the institution and
maintenance OF this suit which appeal to the dis
lures OF Mr. WedenfeId,s conduct. TO which have
adverted. relate entirely 20 his conduct in connec-
I'm the course Of its prosecution The original bill
Northern Pacidc Railway Company from retiring
It's preferred stock Under the charter of the COM
pany It's right 70 do that could be exercised only
Der the board OF directors formally determined 70
retire the preferred stock on January l. 1902 This
intention was communicated 10 the stockholders
r.
among others. knew of the fact and yet he stool
BY and dld NOT hie his oill unu December 90 when.
lamar 1901 The vb1} r9rrr eis vLi bs ban e
defeated FOR at least another twelve months To-
day Mr. WeidenfeIis counse, appear here. on the
Of the Northern Pacihc Railway Company to retire
It's preferred stock Is SO plain as 20 be beyond the
that subject. In bringing these two ends Of this
can judge, 10 some extent. OF the righteousness
p-t--
that I have n mind is the fact that in bringing
Ibis SUIT ana IN us prosecution IN the name OF
the court
Now in carrying forward the litigation under
those circumstance. I say he guilty Of a gross
has uncovered this fraud ana disclosed that fact
il does not stand in good fairh or appeal to eui-
table consideraJi1as FOR Mr. Wedenfeld step for
I Will take up the burden OF this litigation my
self. which thus tar have conducted under the
The third feature Of Mr. wedeufeld's conduct
that & I nave IN mind Is the facJ that he has been
"s-!ly " or srosS-y .mProper conduct IN ooslrucuns
suit IN the nam n . mere Jimmy.
90 not forget also here that it is claimed by
tnis counsel .a4l ae Nss not party and not known
On he rart OF Peter power In eIIdine he process
do not think the EVIDENCE Iustides the belief con
s.deri1g the Relationship between Mr. Wedenfed
and Mr. Lamb and the fact rhat Mn Wedenfeld
from month 70 month was supDying funds for
carrying On this iri44tio ana that this shameless
game of hide and seek vas being conducted I'm his
own vicinity and -rtprroOd-I do think
IS 20 ne believed that he ignorant OF what
there done. or that he party 70 it, Ii
may he that he did not direct each specific step
that was taken hv AIr. Lamb and Peter Power,
VINO were mis- Instruments in carrying this Htt-
cation under the false cover OF a dummy. but
doing what they did they were endeavOrinE 70
cover up and conceal that fraud. and they
simply acting IN the carrying out Of the original
purpose 70 which Mr. Waidenfeld party.
and he is morally responsible for what they did
So I that. u granting his petition OF inJerven-
ton. am nor moved - DO 10 by equitable
c00sif@re tf0-S IN his rather moved il
from The fscr thar this record ought he made
t7 speak tho truth This suit throughout has been
me suit of Mr. Wadeuf-d, and he ought 70 be
brought upon This record sneak and and
answer for himself and also that the same RELIEF
NAV be granted In this suit NOW would have
been granted had ~ not been for this .ulr0sition
upon the court and n Mr.. WefdenfeId had ap-
D"ared uuOr The record. he in fact. the
C1r-ulat0aut IN this cause.
This brings me- 70 consideration o. tha cause On
rs merits There are two questions presented. The
FIRST is ~ rra VALIDITY ~ me retirement ~ -h4
preferred stock ~ tna Northern Pacific company.
That IS NOT nov 0ont-oEe-t4d bur 1t IS ~o-r-overted
FRI frs 0lsefiUEs The evidence leaves r-r the
z-Hrest doubt ~ the entire pr0prietv Of the con-
-urt m counsel for rra -omDIairaut I'm now saving
thar they % U0r urge that ro1rrovsrSv The @vf-
ta-0e ir rh- -arsa. i0 other words leaves Doubt
chat that art vas entireIv valid The decree will
therefore 90 declare. and 4s - that :ea Of the
issues presented by rhe original bill and The bin in
'--a --arr-~rf00 ard the answers thereto. thNaa bills
vfl -a dismissed upor tha merits