Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-07-19
Court Orders Division Of
Profit With Gas Co,
Standard Oil Magnate Will Have
to Pay at Least S1,500,0O0.
The Court Finds Tha! nr. Rogers Is Not
Guilty Of Fraud or Breach Of Trust.

Boston. July 1S.-A decision favor
able 10 the plaintiff was handed down
today in the United States circuit
court in the case of George W. Pepper,
receiver of the Bay State Gas Co. of
Delaware against Henry H. Rogers of
New York in the suit to recover So
100000 alleged to be due the Ray State
Gas 60. in connection with the sale of
the Boston Gas companies
The court orders that the profits shall
he apportioned by master between Mr..
Rogers and the Bay State Gas Co. of
Delaware, but if no definite equita bic
ruling is a&"ertamed. then the amount
shall be apportioned, half to Mr.. Rog-
ers and half to the gas company. The
court finds that Mr.. Rogers is guilty
of no fraud. 1t also finds that he was
guilty Of no breach, so far as asking
the contract was concerned.
Under the decision of the court which
was written by Judge Putnam, Moor
field Story of this city is appointed
master for the purpose of making what
he considers an equitable division of
the So, 900, 900 involved. If the master is
unable to report what he considers an
equitable division, then the Bay State
Gas Co., through Receiver Pepper, shall
receive at least 81, 500 600
In the suit just decided the plaintiff
asked that a decree be entered against
Mr.. Rogers, ordering him to pay to the
plaintiff the sum received by him as
trustee of the Bay State Gas Co. of
Delaware from the New England Gas
& Coke Co, or by its procurement, with
interest, and petitioned that an account
be taken of the loss and injury which
has accrued to the Bay State Gas Co
on account of the negligence, non-feaS-
ance and mis-feaSance of Mr.. Rogers
as trustee under the terms of the trust
agreemen mt.
The bill of complaint alleged that in
1896 the Bay State Gas co. Of Della
ware appointed MIR. Rogers with two
associates as trustees to manage the
Boston. South Boston, 'RoXbury and
BAY state of Massachusetts Gas. Cos.
1t was alleged that in 1897 Mr.. Rogers
sold all his interest in the Brookline
and Dorchester Cos. to the New Eng
land Gas & Coke 60. for Sc. 0G2 .06l, and
at the same time delivered to that com
pany the management and control of
the Boston. South Boston. RoXbury and
the Bay state of MASSACHUSETTS Gas
Co.'S 1t was alleged THAT Mr.. Rogers
received from the New tF,ngland Gas &
Coke Co, s.. go in addition to the
amount stipulated by him for the sale
of his interests in the Dorchester and
Prooklinp Cos. for the delivery of the
management and control Of the other
gas companies ard it was claimed this
s.; coo coo belongs To the Fay state Gas
Co, II Delaware under the trust agree
mont
The Defendant was also charged with
being responsible for the floating in
,ieDt-tintS,S uf the companies entrusted
to his care ana for the decrease III the
values of the companies stock.
After giving Il lengthy review of the
case Judge Putnam holds that the po-
Sition occupied by Henry II. Rogers
was not that of a trustee holding
trust, but that he had full control and
management of the Boston Cas- COM
panirs. acting with the fun consent of
his co-trustet.s and he was liable to
account for gains and profits received
by him alone for his sole benefits. The
court holds; that there was in fact an
active trust of the kind alleged by the
coiilplaillalli ana thdt tnt Ieldti'il;' vi
Rogers to the trust were of such
character as to afford an opportunity
Of securing The gains ana profits al
legged ~ the bill. provided the New
England Gas 6, Coke Co, or the men
Interested in it, were willing to assent
to an arrangement ont Of which the
gains and profits could be derived.
The facts, the decision finds. are all
too clear on the proofs in the record
to require further discussion by the
court
While the court reserves the right to
review its findings after the master
submits his report. ii expresses the
opinion that the amounts received by
the respondent, Rogers, for his Brook
line securities was in excess of any
value which was visible to the court. |
1t is also stated that the amount was
enhanced by reason of the fact that the
breaking up of the trust by the re-
spondent's disposing of his securities
and what Immediately followed that
disposition together with the power
which the control of the Brookline Sc
curitirS carried, brought Rogers a con-
siderabiy larger return than he other
Wise would have received.
The record does not disclose that
Rogers was guilty Of any breach of
trust so far as the making Of any con-
tracts was concerned and as this bill