The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-06
WANTS SUIT DISMISSED
COUNSEL DENOUNCES OPPONENTS OF
THE STEEL CORPORATION.
Says the Attempt to Restrain Bond
Issue Is a Matchmaking Scheme
and a Conspiracy.

NEWARK, N. j., Sept. 5.--Vice Chancel-
lor Emory gave hearing here to-day in
the suit brought by j. Aspinwall Hodge
and others for an injunction to restrain the
United States Steel Corporation from car
rying out it's plan to retire $500 900 Of
preferred stock and to issue $25O.000.0O0 Of
per cent. bonds. r. V. Lindabury, Of coun-
sci for the defendant, moved for an order
directing the complainants to come into
court to be cross-examined as to what
prompted them to bring the suit. as to who
was back of it, and as to the motive of the
suit, and to be cross-examined on questions
touching their stockholdings. In asking for
the order ne claimed that Bernard Smith
and w. H. Curtis, who are named as CO.
complainants with Hodge. are practically
out of the case, as they held no stock that
had not been voted for the bonding plan
when the action was brought, and that they
were acting for third person-David II.
Lamar. Mr.. Lindabury also moved for an
order to have the case stricken from the
records of the court as an imposition. He
declared that he and his associate counsel,
William d. Guthrie and Charles H. Corbin,
were prepared to show by their own affi-
davits that the suit was Matchmaking
scheme and a conspiracy. with Lamar as
chief conspirator.
Mr.. Lindabury then presented an affidavit
of Joseph E. Corrigan, a clerk in the office
Of Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson, report
ing a conversation he had with James H.
Lancaster, who had made an affidavit when
the suit was brought in regard to the val
uation of the steel plants. Lancaster, Cor
rigan averred, told him that he had re-
ceived 500 for the affidavit, not knowing 1T
was to be used in the suit against the Steel
n COrriQan
caster claimed that Lamar told him he
would pay him $3.50 per week to keep quiet,
and $4,000 when the suit should be settled,
not later than Nov. /, 1902 Mr.. I.indabury
to the court was sufficient for the dismissal
of the case.
Robert H McCarter. for the plaintiffs,
questioned the right of the court to dismiss
the case at the present stage of the pro-
ceedings.
Mr. Lindabury argued in favor of the
courts right of dismissal and quoted sew
eral decisions in support of his view of the
matter
Mr.. McCarter, in replying to Mr.. Linda
bury characterized the structures regard
ing the good faith of the compiainants as
unwarranted and uncalled for. He de-
clared that the time for ma king the motion
to dismiss had passed, and that IL was
made to sidetrack the suit and to prolone
the issue. He then read affidavit by
James H. Lancaster, filed Aug. %. in which
denial was made of the allegations in the
| Corrigan affidavit.
Vice Chancellor Emory said the applica-
tons and motions made by the defendant
were made on the allegations In the CORR
| gan affidavit. They involved important
| questions and he would make no decision
| without careful consideration. ION the
| point that a special investigation of the
| bona fides of the case ought to be entered
| into" said the vice chancellor, Il shall
withhold my decision until next Tuesday
| This postponed the hearing until Tuesday