New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-05-30
SAN LUIS NINE FIGHT.
Hiss Myra B. Martin Denies Charges
of Manipulating the Stock.

b
associate Of the late Walter 6. Logan in the vari
mining companies which he promoted, yester-
day answered the persons who have accused her
and Mr.. Logan OF manipulating the stock Of the San
Luis Mining Company for their own advantage and
TO the detrment OF the stockholders Her state
Incnt sent TO the newspapers yesterday after
noon by Logan Demond. Hanford & Read. of No
q William street, counsel for Miss Martin, after
the latter as secretary Of the San Luis Mining
Company, had filed affidavit in the Supreme
Court in 10 the complaint Of John j. Glib
bons in his suit for accounting
On the filing of the affidavit Justice Vernon NJ
Davis issued order for Mr.. Gibbons to show
why the order previously issued by the court
for Miss Martins examination in the suit should
not be vacated The examination set for to-
morrow but has been STAYED by the court pending
Mr. Ghbons's answer to the order to show cause.
Miss Martin, in her affidavit. which is backed up
by the statement issued bv the law firm of which
HOLSTER Logan, of Walter S. Logan, is a mem
Der, denies the charges Of fraud conspiracy ana
mismanagnent made by Mr. Gibbons who is presi-
dent OF the firm of Gilman Collamore & Co. OF No.
24 Fifth avenue. She says that the suit is not
brought n good faith; that it has simply been
trumpet up by Mr.. Gibbons in collision with Louis
Ross the discharged managing director OF the
company also with Walter B. Raymond. who
was once a clerk for Walter s Logan. and is now
representing Mr. Gibbons. Mr.. Raymond is a
member of the law firm OF Watson & Raymond,
which is also charged with being party to the
scheme 10 force the Logan estate 10 sell to Glib
bons and his associates big blocks of the San Luis
Mining Company stock at prices away below their
real value
When Gibbons and Watson 6, Raymond tried TO
secure the stock from the Logan estate. according
to Miss Martin their offers declined. About
the time. she says. Ross. who formerly man
aged the company's property in Mexico, tried to
extort from the estate large amount of the stock.
and failing in their efforts. Gibbons. Watson &
Raymond and Ross got together in a plan to attack
the estate that it would be compelled TO dispose
of the stock. Gibbons. according Miss Martin.
furnished funds Ross, who had been discharged
by the board of directors.
Ross then, it is charged took possession of the
mines in Mexico and refused surrender them to
the company's officials. All this while. according
to Miss Martins affidavit. the sinews of war were
being furnished Ross by Gibbons and Watson 81
Raymond. Furthermore she says. although Glib
hons authorized by the board of directors TO
investigate the standing of the company, the ac-
countant who the books was instructed
10 examine private and confidential papers which
had connection with the investigation. a pro-
ceeding she characterizes as unfair and unjust.
Gibbons and his associates, according TO Miss
Martin, should be the ones TO be sued and not the
Logan estate, because a result of their acts in
seeking get control of the companys stock and in
holding the mines in defiance of the company and
the Mexican courts. the company has been COM
PEELED TO expend more than 100000 in getting the
mines back from Ross and his associates. Ross. 1t
is alleged. is now bail in Mexico. charge
of Incorporating funds Of the company but. in
spite OF their knowledge of this alleged fact. Glib
bons and Watson & Raymond have been working
hand in glove with him in their efforts 10 haress
the Logan estate.
In regard TO the loan of s150o00 made to the San
Luis Mining Company by State Senator Agnew,
Miss Martin says that Gibbons in his complaint
has failed 10 mention the fact that she borrowed
this to lend il TO the company. and, in
fact, has already advanced account OF this loan
10 the company 1925. 900. without any security but
the companys notes Miss Martins lawyers say
that she and the Logan estate have pledged the
stock which they hold in the company obtain the
loan that the work of developing the property
of the company may be properly prosecuted. In
their statement they say:
II is at least as easy to loot and SANDER a dead
1t IS TO loot mining company" More
over, g conspiracy between a former law clerk in
the Office of the company counsel general
manager held under bail by order of the
courts of Mexico for embezZling the company's
funds, and prominent New York business
formerly president of the company, and while
director known 10 have furnished funds 10 assist
the former general manager in his criminal prac
tees, is obviously strong combination. We have
complaint whatever TO make in regard to the
publication of q fair summary of the complaints In
the San Luis and Copete actions.