Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-04-13
MORE GAS LITIGATION.
Arguments in Equity Suit in the Bos.
ton Matter.

Boston, April 12.-Arguments of coun-
sci in the equity suit brought by Re-
ceiver Pepper of the Bay State Gas
co. of Delaware, to restrain the sale OF
the stock of the various Boston gas
companies were gebun, today, before
Justice Barker of the supreme judicial
| court. The proceedings were held in a
small consultation room, the public be-
ing excluded. Attorney Frederick T.
Snow, counsel for KidJer, Peabody q,
co. OF Boston, one of the defendants
in the suit, made the opening argu-
ment. He wished to make it clear, he
said, that his sole object was to arrive
ut the facts in the case i'm Il friendly
and equitable manner. Mr.. Snow then
proceeded TO outline the way in which
teh foreclosure sale of the gas COM
panies was carried out in February.
1902.
Mr.. Snow went on to outline the Ie-
gal relationship of the Bay State Gas
Co. of New Jersey with the Bay State
Gas 60. of Delaware, and spoke of
what he termed the futility of any ac-
ton by the stockholders of the Della
ware company in bringing an action in
the present case.
lie pointed out that We're the fore
closure sale of the stocks under the
Boston United Gas bonds set aside it
would be impossible to reinstate the
parties in the condition they were be-
fore the sale and it would be impossible
to distribute the securities involved to
their original owners. Mr. Snow fur
Their called attention to the delay in
bringing this action by the petitioner
in this case, the bill not being filed un-
til January IL, 1904 notwithstanding
the illegal acts alleged took place many
months previous.
Attorney Snow argued that both the
Bay State Gas Co. of Delaware, and Bay
State Gas Co. of New Jersey. had been
properly and promptly informed concern
ing the lack Of funds to meet bond re-
quircmentS, and that there was no excuse
for the Delaware company refusing to
meet the demand for funds on the ground
of insufficient notice
Arguing on the question of conspiracy
on the part of the Massachusetts gas
companies interest to depriv" the Bay
State Gas Co. of Delaware of its rights
in the Boston gas field. Attorney Snow
stated that Il distinction should be made
between Il consultation and Il conspiracy
lie admitted holding consultations with
to rectiverShip proceedings, but denied
that these consultations, or consultations
with Harry II. Rogers of the Mercantile
Trust Co. of New York interests, We're
in the nature of conspiracy.
There We're So many lnSinuatiOnS of col
fusion that Mr. Snow remarked that he
did not know how to deal with this phase
of the case.
Attorney Snow asserted that Harry H.
Rogers had no financial interests i'll
either the New England Gas and Coke
Co. or Boston organizations except to re.
ctiVc 10 per cent of the New England
Gas and Coke reorganization profits for
payment to Thomas w. Lawson.
Mr. IawSons testimony, he stated. was
contradictory to that of Henry ii. Rogers
and Robert WinSor and as he did not
to the case he would not argue concern
ing it.
The Bay State Gas Co. of Delaware he
said had never made any endeavor to
make good the defaults of the bonds and
did absolutely nothing to prevent the
foreclosure as Il matter OF fact. Mr.. Snow
stated that j. Edward AddickS had told
Henry H. Rogers in March. 1902, that the
Bay State Gas Co of Delaware, had no
money and did not propose to make good |
the default then existing on the bonds.
In closing his argument, Lawyer Snow
stated that George w. Pepper, receiver
OF the Bay State Gas Co. of Della ware !
would moi have been appointed had it not
been for the cooperation of l\idder Pea
body Il Co. This firm, he said. knew that
Mr. Pepper was not under control of j.
Edward AddickS.
Attorney Alfred Hemenway. represent
ing Henry H. Rogers followed Mr.. Snow
His argument was. in the main. an elab-
Grafton of Attorney Shows argument.