The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-01

var4abIe winds, beconaing north.
 ments and that the defendant society retained all the evidence of claims against the individual agents.
 Ts Directors h Beth.
 si It Is also charged that the Commer- cial Trust Company of Philadelphia had on it's books the sum of $&27S.249 composed of assigned balances and debts due from agents of the Equitable on which the defendant society paid to the Trust Company 6 per cent per annum although the sum was not taken from the trust company. although it the sAme time the trust company had on deposit large sums of the defendant societys upon which the trust company paid only a per cent. At the time of th6De transactions 1t is charged that :JAms1 H Hyde, James W. Alexander. T. Dc Nqtt Curler and Henry B. Winthrop ware directors in both companies. { p Referring to the merger in 1899 of the Western National Bank of the City of New York. in which the Equitable So- ciety was the owner of 12,000 shares, with the National Bank of the United States of New York. the complaint says:
 The Board of Directors of the de- fendant society in violation of their duty to said society accepted the con dition of this merger. and the defendant society, through Its executive commit tee. with the approval and consent of said officers and directors, accepted the offer of $70 in cash and $40 in stock Of the consolidated bank in exchange fofsseach S100 par value Of the stock owned and held by the defendant so- ciety In the Western National Bank of the City of New York, making the total amount received b ythe defendant so- ciety s210 for each share of stock held by 1t in the said Western National Bank of the City of New York. the market value of which said stock at the time of said exchange was from $500 to s625 per share, and for which the defendant society, by reason of it's said stock forming the controlling interest in said Western National Bank Of the City of New York, could have obtained t700 per share. and for which said stock said socfety's Board of Directors could have obtained for the defendant sociefy the sum Of $500 per share by accepting the second of the alternative offers made in the circular dated December 13, 1902.
 Salaries Too HlxA.
 schedule of the salaries paid dur Ing the last five years to the principal officers of the society is appended to the complaint. which declares such sai- aries to have been largely in excess of the value of the services of the persons named, and that the payment of such salaries resulted in sube(kntia1 loss to the society. It fs also charged that In addition to the salaries feferred to the individual de<endants, sssof'icers. mem bers of committees. trudfees or agents, permitted the defendant society to pay to many of the aboS9 named officers and direeNors othefs haeke and unwar- ranted sums as expefsGes incurred by such persons in the sefFice of the so- ciety and said siifHs wire paid without sufriclent vouchers. Without proper proof of their ,amounts land without 1t being properly shown At the said de- fendant society in, ant way benefited by such expenditures orvwas legally or properly chargeabIe herewith"
 The complaint also charges that the defendants wrongfully caused the de- fendant society and a number of other societies and corporations in which the defendant society was large. stock holder and in which some of said in- dividual defendants were also directors and stockholders. to pay large sums of money to themselves, or some of their number, and to other persons under tho guise of salaries and fees for attending to their duties as officers and directors and members of committees of defend- ant society and of several other socie- ties and corporations.
 Especial mention is made of the re- ceipt by MT. Hyde of salaries aggre- gating $27,000 annually from the Equit- able, Mercantile and Commercial Trust companies, in all of which the Equitable Life Is largely interested Allegation Is also made of the payment of illegal and excessive pensions to various per sons and of the payment of excessive, improper and unwarranted sums to va rious attorneys and counsellors at law, the aggregate amount of which far ex- ceeded and was entirely disproportion- ate to the services rendered.
 Not shown on Books.
 Of the transactions of James w. AL exande- and Thomas D. Jordan with the Mercantile Trust Company, the com pIaint says: Said transaction does not appear upon the books of defendant so- ciety and if any of said sums were from time to time advanced to the said defendant society or for its use. no ac- count thereof appears upon the soci- ety's books, and no account has been rendered to the said defendant society therefor, and if said amounts were paid by. or for, or on account of the de- fendant society, there was no author ity for such payment and no benefit accrued to said st ciety therefor, and the same was a waate and loss of so much of the funds and property of said so- ciety IS may have been applied there on.
 If tre said defendant society became ob1ixsted to ths said Mercantile Trust Company to pay said sum of $6ss,o0o, the said obligation was incurred for inn proper and illegal purposes, in violation of the duty of the directors and to the detriment and disadvantage of the said defendant society
 Of the loan to the Depew Improve ment Company the complaint charges that:
 The defendants improperly. improv- idently and wastefully procured and permitted the defendant society to loan the sum of s250,000 to the Depew Inn proyement Company, a corporation do- ing business in the State of New York in which the company. the defendant Chauncey M. Depew. and others of the defendants, were stockhold- CTS. which loan of $250.000 was made unon grossly inadequate security anu which property securing said loan was appraised in 1901 by the insurance de- partment of the state or New forK at the sum of s150,oo0.
 Said Depew Improvement Company subsequently, became insolvent and the propertv securing said loan was bid in at forecIosure sale for about $50,000, thereby resulting in a great waste and loss of the property of the defendant society.
 Deficiency stiII Unpaid.
 The referees deed for said property was not recorded by said defendant society until about July 12. 1905, and in the meantime no proceedings were taken to collect the judgment for the