The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-24

The Former President Also Asked 10 Make
Restitution OF the Unauthorized"
Increase OF His Salary. the "Exorbi-
tant' Profits and Certain Gratuitiese
That Went TO Son-in.Law Thebaud's
Agency Firm and the Commission Son
Robert Got Out OF the Company's
Foreign Busfness-An Of Which. It's
Alleged, Care Would Have stopped.
The complaint in the Mutual Life In
surance C~ompany's suit against, Richard
A. McCurdy was served yesterday on the
defendants counsel, De Lancey Niooll, Of
Nicoll, Anable & Lindsay.
The Mutual seeks TO recover from its
former president $780, 41 .ee, with in
terest, as damages for his "unfaithfulness
and neglect" Mr.. McCurdy is held per-
sonally responsible for practically all the
waste that has been " red in the
Mutual. II he did not know of the e1-
traordinary expenditur res made he was,
the company alleges, negligent in the
discharge Of his duties and therefore liable.
The complaint served yesterday Is only
one Of eight that viii be served in actions
begun by the company against the former
president, his son, Robert H. McCurdy,
and the members Of the metropolitan
agency firm OF G. II. Raymond & Co, who
include ex-president MoCurdy's son-in-
law, Louis A. Thebaud.
Nr6n 4orn-latok ,or,,oJ -o,karlou aon
tains nine separate Gauges Of action. Under
the first Eve recovery Is sought in the ag-
eregate OF $292 500 as alleged contributions
to political parties since january l, 1885,
These contributions are said to have been
$4,000 In 1896, SIS 900 in 1900 and 100000
IN 1904 to the Republican national com
mittee; 1850 in 1904 to the Republican
Congressional committee, and $500 900. en-
bracing the various cont ributions which
Senator Plat testified before the Armstrong
committee had been made by the Mutual
TO the Republican State committee since
January 1, 1885,
President MoCurdy testified before the
Armstrong committee that the Mutual
had never contributed to the State cam
paigns. In connection with each of these
i've causes Of action it is alleged:
That the said payments were Unlawful. i'm
provident and a waste of the assets Of the
plaintin, and were made. authorized or per-
mitted by the defendant through want of
!auhfulness and ordinary care. vigilance and
diligence in the discharge of his Aforesaid du-
,lcs to the plaintiff: that the said payments
we're made without authority or authorization
by the plaintiff, were not for any of its corpo-
rate purposes and were beyond the lawful
POWERS OF the plaintln as a corporation. ana
'.it he defendant neglected 10 establish
PROPER and ADEQUATE rules ana reguiatiohs 10
prevent the SAID payments ana the cohtrlpu-
i"h oil lhc plaihtln moneys 10 pol'icai pnr-
iA"s,
The sixth cause of action seeks to re-
cover from Mr., Mc(Hlrdy S225 900, repre-
coming tho total ~ the s5o ono alleged in
- =. -, ~ ~, sinoa
80. ,n", !. a-HmSuoa 49,. ~ ;nonaaso
o"i7 ! l"oi' 'n,se 'loU ~ S"P.
from Sloo'ooo 10 Sloo'VVo was nHue WITHOUT
authority.
Under the seventh cause the recovery
is sought of 5000 600. the aggregate amount
raid out by the plaintiff in the last six years
on the voucher Of the committee on ex-
penditures under circumstances detailed
in the testimony before the Armstrong
committee. These are the payments OF
s25. 600 aus rterIy which the Mutual made
ON the order of Robert Olyphant, chairman
of the committee on expenditures. =
The Armstrong committee was never
able to find out what became of the money.
Mr.. Olyphant testified that he paid it over
to tbe law dena rtment OF the COMPANY.
In regard To this the complaint alleges:
That during tho se;d neriod tho main
tenancs and prrposes Of the said -con-
fdentiaI fund" and the use made of the
moneys constit uting the said fund" were
known by him, the defendant, or could
or should have been known by him by
the exercise OF que care ana iathtuhees
IN tne alscnaIse Oh hs aIoresaiu uuues 70
ptdlntih' 'hat he'ertnelees' tHIouhh wan.