Imperial Valley press and the Imperial press., 1906-06-23
DEFENSE SHOWN
|. M. Holt and the ChdffeyS Tell Of Their Interest in the Law Suits
 Against Them

Holt for the appointment ot receiver for the California Development Con- pany, as an adjunct to his suit against the development company and the Southern Pacific Company, for can cellation of the agreement between these two companies, Mir. Holt yesterday filed three affidayits in rebuttal to the an swer of the development company.
 The filing of these affidavits are of more interest'than such legal documents in rebuttal usually assume, for the req son that in this case they are an indica- tion of the line of defense which George and A. NJ. Chaffey will make to the suit of the developement company m the Superior Court against them and others for $890, GOO, which the company claims is its due from the defendants on ac- count of alleged fraudulent transactions in connection with the sale of it's se- curities.
 Otherwise these affidavits are simply one phase 0f;tlIe legal tangle in which the development company, and, through its interest in this coupany, the South ern Pacific has become involved.
 In it's answer to the application for a receiver the development company as- serts that the suit against it is not brought in good faith,, that practically MT. Holt is simply fgurehead, and o,,d primarily as an offset against the com plaint of the company against the Chaf- feys.
 In his affidavit. Mir. Holt denies that he told E. c. Paulin, or anyone else, that he would dismiss his suit against the company if the company would dis miss it's complaint against the Chaffeys. He says he.has been for many months in favor of placing the company ill the hands of receiver. He adds that he is not a.large stOckholder in the com pany, or financially able to conduct this suit. but that he is entitled to legal protection and that if he wins this suit the company will have to pay the ex- nenses and a reasonable attornev's fee
 Continuing, MT. Holt states that he was induced to undertake the present litigation when he was shown last Jan- uarv the draft of complaint prepared bv bondholder and learned that the suit could be more strongly conducted in the name of stockholder.
 In an affidavit filed by A. NJ. Chaffev he acknowledges that he showed Holt this complaint.
 Mr. Holt in his affidavit reviews the history of the operations of the develop ment company for a number of years and asserts that at the time George Chaffey took hold of the affairs of the company in 1900 and cut an irrigating canal to the Imperial Valley, the de- velopment company was over $l ,300,000 in debt and its assets consisted of some pie plates and camp equippage worth less than 5000.
 Also that money was raised by the company on promlssory notes to the Southern Pacific company to the amount of $500, ,OOO to pay for work to save the railroad company's right of way, and that the company has so ar ranged through it's officers that the company is placed completely at the mercy of the Southern Pacific
 WOULD NOT GIVE UP
 Mir. Holt asserts that the present off cers have practically the whip hand over other stockholders in the company and submits copy of letter to him asking him to give up one-third of his holdings for the benefit of the company and naming A. H. Heber, w. T. Heffer man, H. w. Blaisdell, c. R. Redwood, Katherine D. Redwood and the Im- perial Land Company as having econ tributed" this amount of stock to the company.
 These stockholders, it is claimed, were | originally defendants with the Chaffeys in the suit brought by the develope- ment company, but that since this f'con- tribution" the suit as to them has been 1 dismissed.
 A. NJ. ChaffeY in his affidavit, filed | with that of Mr. Holt States that last |