The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1906-03-01

leased to VIM. J. Best In 1881. and
no question was ever raised as to-
the lease 80 long as he paid the rent.
He became unable to pay the rent
and forfeited his contract.
The four other contentious Of the
plaintiff relate TO irregularities in
making the lease. The first cites
the requirement that notice shall be
published in two New Bern news
papers before q meeting Of the stock
holders could be held and asserts
that the meeting September 1, 1904,
was advertised only In one New
Bern newspaper.
The answer Of the defendant Is
that there was only one newspaper
published in New Bern then. The
meeting was properly advertised in
that paper and notice was given in
nearly all the other newspapers Of
the State. Even the plaintiff knew
Of the meeting and intended to at
tend but reached the station after
the train naQ lett.
LEASE MADE AT NIGHT, 1T Is SAID.
Another contention is that the
lease was made in the night between
l and 2 O'Clock Of September, and
the 100000 deposit was not put
until three days later. On the other
hand it is said that during these
three days the lessee only had nom
nal charge and President James A.
Bryan turned over nothing to the
Rowland Improvement Company
until Gov. Aycock wired that the
100000 had been deposited.
The third reason assigned by the
plaintiff is that the lease required a
deposit Of security to be placed in
the hands of trustee to be selected
by the directors of the lessor, whereas
the directors never selected anybody
and the deposit in the Wachovia
Loan and Trust Company was not a
compliance. In reply it is said that
this loan and trust company was Sc.
lected by Governor Aycock and the
officers Of the Atlantic and North
Carolina Railroad. A trust deed in
triplicate was prepared the Attorney
General for the State, and Gen. Theo.
Davidson and Mr.. James FL. Pou for
the Rowland Company and executed
by the latter, copies being kept by
each. This was done Immediately
after the delivery of the road to the
trustee, it is stated, and the loan and
trust company has continued since
that time to hold 100000 in North
Carolina 4 per cent. bonds as secu-
rity for compliance with the lease.
The last claim is that in violation
Of the lease some local rates have
been rearranged and made higher.
On the other side it has been stated
that some rates have been lowered
and all the rates conform to the re-
iquirements Of the State Corporation
Commission. No forfeiture is pro.
vided in the lease ON account of rails
ing rates, but the party damaged is
entitled to recover by suit.
The above seem to be, briefly sta
ted, the contentious On both sides.
OPPONENTS OF LEASE.
The plaintiff bringing the suit to
set aside the lease, owned one share
when the lease was made, and after
the lease bought one other. Craven
county has since joined with the
plaintiff, but the Craven stock was
voted for the lease when it was
made. Mr.. @. E. Foy, of New Bern,
is also opposing the lease. He was
present at the stockholders meeting
and voted against the lease then. "a
He also attended the directors
meeting three weeks later, when no
objection was made to the lease, and
Mr.. Foy offered resolution to ap-
point committee to pay the divi-
dends from money derived from the
lease. Dividends have been paid
Regularly ever since.
MYSTERIOUS HOLDER OF THE BONDS.
One Of the most interesting and
sensational phases of the situation is
that a large block of the States
stock In this road is hypothecsted
similar to the States stock in the
North Carolina Railroad in the ia
NOUS South Dakota suit. Just be-
fore the civil war North Carolina is
sued bonds to complete the railroad
and guaranteed these with stock
(about $4,000 still outstanding
with 40 years interest.) If the rail-
road is sold the owners of those
bonds may intervene and say that
the money shall not be paid until
their lien is satisfied.
Who owns those bonds no one
knows. The last heard of them was
when suit was brought in the
Federal Court by William E. Chris
tian to force the collection of those
bonds. The case went to the United
States Supreme Court which held
that Mr.. Christian could not sue the
State. Since then the same court
has held that while citizen cannot
she the State he may sell to another
State and the latter sue the debtor
State.