New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-18
MR.. ROGERS EX0NERAFED
Decision AdUerSe to Notification of
Boston Gas Sales.

Boston. May I7.-Judge Barker Of the Supreme
Court. to-day announced decision adverse TO Re
csiRer George W. Pepper. Of the Bay state Gas
Company. Of Delaware. in his action for the NULL
Hcarson OF the sale Of the Boston Gas Companies
Ga co1nection with the plan merge them into a
new combination. The decision dismisses the bill
Of Mr. Pepper which alleged that the sale was ac-
coraplished by fraud and conspiracy. The case
which came before the court in March consumed
sevePai weeks and much sensational testimony
WAS given. at the close OF arguments Judge Barker
reserved decision. It Is understood that the case
win be carried 10 higher court
The announcement Of the decision on the Stock
Exchange Immediately affected Massachusetts, Cas-
which jumped point ana thFee-quarters. The mar
ket was almost listless at the time. The distin-
-iishsd assembly OF counsel Of the features
~ The cass. Besides MI. Whpple representing Re
esxer Pepper. James NJ. Beck, OF New-York. for
aaerly Assistant United States Attorney General
sus Walter l. Badger and Alfred Hemenway, Of
Boston appeared for H. II. Rogers. and CASTOR
Enow 6s Saltonstsn. Boston firm. for both Fddder
Peabody and Co. and the Mercantile Trust Com
Iaoy, OF NeFAYork.
II his decision. Justice Barker who found for
the defence every point, says there was no evil
6eEcs OF any fraudulent action or lack Of faith
fulness on the part Of the Mercantile Trust Com
paay, OF Eew-York. nor on the part OF Henry H.
Rogers This constituted the chief contention of
Sherman z. Whipple who was counse! for ReeeiV-
er Pepper The court also exonerated in every way
t9s nrun OF Kidder. Peabody & Co. The decision
ssyv IN part:
! nnd that none OF the defendants have wrong
proSure create, maintain or continue any default
under the terms Of the inGent1TG on E a Com
psnies were pledged. or 10 prevent me Lleltmps
OF TFronEfuIy to effect 4 foreclosure sale Of the
pledged stock find that none Of the Defendants amt;
10 declare dividsods for The year 1902 attempted
TO prevent companies from declaring sucA u'''-
N connection with the plan there were under r.
Taae P Pea 06eG Ga Brown rothers Co and
Eersys CO and many ma, o5Re 3,b either the
trust company nor tho defendant, Rogers. had any
ateTest share 3ercentsge or Stake for himself,
either In the New England Gas and Coke Com.
the rights and interests Of the bondhoders by the
6eS vas no oosprcT or cousion and no i'm
proper combination or cooperation. ma tAat
ated ana contTived fogstheT either ProcuEe ere
ate MAINTAIN or continue ANY 9SIa@ 1sg or to
prevent the Delaware company from procuring any
SsTSun dee 3bS 2leTg Sf gtoc u
Upon consideration of ali the evidence and Of
been before the foreclosure sale Of February H.
iss s9ea 9Fe9Sa OF fee m fh o ind@htGres Of
January J. 1889 with reference 10 the sinking fund
ssesTpgnce Of such breach by bondholders whose
bonds were secured by that neege as made II Inc
70 q foreclosure sale under those indentures, and
1ary proceeded in good faith and with due dill
t5erre and in conformity 70 the terms Of the
fhoritv n that respect conferred on the company
by the indentuFes and that. the foreclosure and
sale of February L. 1893. were fair and legal and
should not be relieved or set aside.
The large financial interests involved, the prom
tnenee OF the men brought into the proceedings
and the seriousness Of the charges made at the
Hearing caused the 10 be ranked one or the
most important brought before Massachusetts
courts The defendants TO the ctlon lncuded the
Mercantile Trust CouDany OF Newly ork, and Kid
der Peabody & Co. Of Boston. the financial agents
II connection With the merger, and Henry h
rogers of NeV-York. trustee Of the Bay state
Gas Company Of Delaware. Receiver George u
fFallerl Of the Pay State Gas Company OF New
fsrsev and the Massachusetts Gas Companies. the
coPporatiQn into which the Boston companies We're
merged also were party defendants TO the suit NJ
Rogers and Thomas ". Lawson, Of Boston, were
among the prominent witnesses IN the case, their
testimony concerning transactions involving mill
ions being sensational.
James NJ Beck Of this city. who. with Alfred
Hemenway Of Boston. was Henry H Rogerss
counsel ip the case when asked as 10 the enect OF
the decision yesterday. said:
The decision is very gratifying, it is a sweep
ing vindcatiop Of Mr. Rogers. II fully eXonerates
The Bay State Gas Company Of Delaware IN any
duty which he owed that corporation The court
disposition Of the charges which Thomas W. Law
son made against Nr. Rogers Is especially gratliy-
ing. Dir. IlaYson, in his testimony. made a num-
her of would-be sensational statements To each
denial In the issue Of veracty thus raised between
him and Lawson. Mr.. Rogers has been content TO
await the decision of impartial court