Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-26
COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS.
Proceedings for Appointment Of Re
ceivers for Butterine Company.

The entire session of Equity Court No. 1,
Justice Hagner presiding, today, was de-
voted to the arguments in connection with
the proceedings instituted by Charles F.
Nesbit and several others. as intervenors to
secure the appointment Of receivers to take
charge Of the property and assets Of the
Standard Butterine Company. 1t is stated
that majority of the members Of the
board Of directors Of the company have
consented to the appointment of receivers,
but the legal difficulty arises by reason of
the fact that Mr.. Walter P. Wilkins, presi-
dent of the company, takes an opposite view
on the proposition.
In an answer filed today in the name of
the company Mr.. Wilkins declares that it's
operations have not been conducted uni
formly at a loss, the fact being that at
some periods since its organization the op-
erations have been conducted at a profit
The company, asserts Mr.. Wilkins, not
withstanding the ,untoward circumstances
under which it's operations have been con-
Quoted, and Notwithstanding the trials and
embarrassments which it has encountered,
Is perfectly solvent and able to meet all of
it's obligations and liabilities. If permit
ted to continue it's operations, says Mr.
wilkins. the prospect is that. in spite of
the recent legislation affecting the product
manufactured by 1t, the company will be
put upon a safe, sound and paying basis,
whereas. according to Mr. Wilkins, if now
placed in the hands of receivers, the re-
suit will be the inevitable destruction Of
the enterprise and great loss to its stock
holders
Mr. wilkins contends that the .'pretended
confession of judgment" on a promissory
note for $4,000 in favor Of Charles F. Mes
bit and the pretended consent Of the COM
pany to the appointment Of receivers are
utterly null and void, for the reason that
there was no duly convened" meeting Of
the board of directors the 23d instant, the
day the alleged action to the effect indi-
Gated was taken. Further, he says, he was
not notified that the meeting was to be
held
Attorney Henry E. Davis represented Mr..
Wilkins
Mr. Wilton J. Lambert presented an affi-
davit Of DR.. Harrison Crook. vice president
Of the company, setting forth certain rea-
sons why the majority Of the board Of d.
rectors had acted in favor Of the appoint
employees of the company, together with a
statement signed by large number Of the
stockholders requesting that the court take
charge of the above through the medium of
a receiver, was also submitted, as were
the minutes of the company, showing that
Mr. Lambert was appointed the attorney
for the company by unanimous vote of the
board of directors January II last. Petit
tions were also presented by Attorneys Dam
lei w. O'Donoghue and Brandenburg &
Brandenburg, requesting that some proper
party or parties be appointed receivers.
Attorneys Raiston and Siddons, repre-
senting Mr.. Nesbit, addressed the court
upon the question of the validity of Mr..
Nesbits Judgment and the regularity Of
the proceedings taken thereon, to all OF
which Mr.. Davis responded, contending that
the judgment was not a proper one and
that an equity court should take no juris-
diction of the cause in the line Of appoint
ing q receiver.
At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Hagner decided to appoint receivers for
the company.