New-York tribune., 1906-07-11
l.. W. LAWRENCE SUED.
MILLION MY BE ASKED.
Mutual to RecOUer or Padded Bills
Granniss and Gillette Complaints.


which were paid to his stationery firm on raa-
ded bills and through erroneous vouchers vas
begun against Lysander W Lawrence BY t1e
Mutual Life Insurance Company yesterday. It
IS believed that this suit may involve over
SlOO0OO0 IL the complaint goes far enough
back in the business dealings OF the firm with
the Mutual
Complaints in the suits OF the Mutual against
Robert A. Granniss and Dr. Walter r. Gillette.
both ermer vice-presidents or the comranv.
were served yesterday. The suit against Mr.
Granniss asks for Judgment against him os
Ssl1'0OD on account of moneys paid cut on
vouchers, alleged to have been negligentlv passed
by him. and moneys paid out IN ways that were
beyond his powers an OfEcer OF the ccr-s-
pany- He is accused OF participating in the es-
adjustment Of a yellow dog" fund. which tfe
complaint terms confidential fund" He =
held accountable for S60OON0 OF the fund.
The action against DR.. Gillette is for an ac-
counting Of the yellow dog" fund ana or TIRE
large payments made on padded and fake bills
alleged TO be for printing and stationery. Both
defendants are asked to account for the moneys
paid to campaign funds.
Summons in the suit against I.ysander ".
Lawrence was served on the law firm OF Collin.
Weils q Hughes. Of No. Nassau street. which
appeared In his behalf. The firm OF Iawrence
& Company had been the official stationarz ara
teen years For seven years Andrew G. Fielas
was head of the supply department and through
a clever arrangement between him and other
officers OF the company and the stationery firm
ABOUT SlOO'OOO year. It was learned. was d.
verted from the treasury of the companv- Most
OF this money was supposed to have been turned
over by the Lawrence firm to Fields who used
II IN his legislative work There was never any
accounting Of this money. Of course. and IL Is
70 he
traced at this date
GOODS WERE NEVER DELIVERED.
The arrangement by which the money vas d.
Verted was that the Lawrence firm would turn
over to the company only about IS per cent -
the goods called for on the reo1Iisitior, T1 r,11
Tor the full amount would be presented ana
were paid The money for what was paia Tor
ana not delivered is supposed to have gone In
the Fields fund There were also fake bills rrle
IN on letter heads Of McEibbin & Son. hook
binders. and Charles E. Parsons'' for eooss
tnat were never delivered These frsudula1s
transactions were not suspected by the insur-
ahce investigators until the insurance grand
jury got to work in May Edgar W. Rogers a
member Of the Lawrence firm. gave the A., -
formation regarding them.
Before the Armstrong committee got 70 work
MI Lawrence. who is an old and feeble man
went to his country home in Connecticut ana
IL was impossible to get him before that bo4v.
Later he went TO Hot Springs. and. it IS be-
lieved. is still out Of the jurisdiction o. this
state
James McKeen. general solicitor Of the Mutual
Life. who announced the beginning Of the suit
was asked how far back it would go into tha
transactions of the firm with the company. and
if the statute of limitations would not cover
some of them.
The statute of limitations does not BEGIN TO
run until the facts given in the cause OF action
are discovered he said You may say that
the suit will be for the recovery Of hundreds
of thousands Of dollars"
The facts alleged were not discovered until
six weeks ago. Mr. McKeen said he did not
think suits would be brought against BlcEZibbin
& Son and the other firms in whose names the
Mutual was mulcted for thousands OF dollars.
1t is his idea that Mr.. Lawrence can be held
accountable on all the transactions which wenr
through his firm There will be several causes
Of action alleged in the complaint against Mr..
Lawrence which has not yet been drawn.
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST GRANNISs.
The complaint in the suit against Robert A.
GTanniss was served on the firm Of Lord. Day
& Lord. his counsel. The following summary
of the complaint was given out by the law
department OF the Mutual:
1t is alleged that Mr. Granniss was not onlx
an officer. but a trustee Of the company: tha, n.
omitted TO sCrutinize vouchers which were sub
mitted to him. and negligently and carelessIy
approved many vouchers which represented
money paid for purposes which were not author
ized Many OF these items. it is alleged. were
improvident. and were transactions not within
the corporate purposes Of the Mutual Life In
surance Company. or were fictitious. and thar he
knew, or. in the exercise OF due care. could ana
should have known, that these payments were
unlawful. unauthorized and imprOVideut or
transactions not within the corporate PURPOSES
of the PLAINTIFF that the damages suffered BY
reason of this class Of acts amounted TO 100000
Another cause of action against Mr.. Grannfsg
forth in the complaint is that he participated
in the making Of payments out OF the assets OF
the company aggregating the sum OF $S25OO to
defray the expenses OF campaigns conducted bsr
political parties. All payments Of this character
were ultra wires.
For the third cause OF action the complaiDt
alleges in substance the specific act OF Mr. Gran
Miss in permitting to be made a payment 81
$2,5O0 TO the Congress campaign COMMITTEES
For fourth cause OF action it is alleged that
Mr. GTrannisS IN January, 1904. approved a
voucher Tor the payment OF $4,000 to EOhorf
Olyphant, knowing that Olyphant was not
authorized to receive disburse said s7Ir1 rThf.
IS one or the periodical payments made TO the
chairman of the expenditures committee A. an
pearing that Mr.. Granniss particfpated in c~s
ating the voucher for this particular payment
For a NTH cause of action il is ALLEGED that
MT 0SrsanTiSS participated in the ARRANGEMENTS
BY which money was taken out OF the GeneraI
assets OF the company. and Herewith there vre-
established and maintaped fund called the
confidential fund. which was expended i'm
prOvidently and for objects not within the cor
pOrate purposes of the company and bevon6 tro
lawful powers. The aggregate amount OF this
fund for which ne IS held accountable is 5000
COO The total amount for which Judgment a
asked is S9l7JOO with interest.
Choate. Hanford & I.arOcque. the attorneys
representing DR., Walter r Gillette accented
service OF the complaint in the suit against
him. 1t is simply an action for an aceountine
and viii probably be followed by another SUI