The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-08-01
Stevenson MAKES
SAVAGE ATTACK
ON RECEIVER
TALKS or PERJURY IN coNNRo.
TON WITH SUIT AoAINsr HAY.
DEN. STONE & co-JupoE MAN
DELL CONTINUES iNJuNcTIoN.

After hard-fought verbal battle be-
tween attorneys before Judge Man
dell, Saturday morning. the court con-
tinued the injunction granted ON the
petition OF Receiver r. G.. Austin, IN
behalf OF the creditors OF Cameron
Currie e. Co., restraining Hayden.
Stone & Co., OF Boston. from dispos-
Ing OF the million and half Of secur-
tiles pledged with them by the bust
ed" brokerage firm.
This action was taken only after
Attorney Elliott G.. Stevenson. for
Hayden. Stone & Co.. had protested
most strongly against the continuance
OF the restraining order. assailing the
receiver In harsh terms and asserting
that the court has no jurisdiction.
The Injunction Is to continue until
Hayden, Stone & Co. come into court
to answer 10 the bill of the receiver
and prove their claim Of 81 100000
against the pledged stocks
The courts action was accepted by
the lawyers gathered as STAYING OF
bankruptcy proceedings. Hayden.
Stone e. Co. can sell the securities
now only in open defiance of the
court. and such action IL not expected.
at least unless there should be great
decline In the stock market.
The court room was crowded with
attorneys representing claims against
Cameron Currie 4 Co. Only few OF
the attorneys spoke and these all ask
ed the court to maintain the injunc-
ton and TINS preserve the rights of
the customers Of the brokerage from.
The anxiety was well explained BY
Attorney F. w. Stevens, for the re-
ceiver, who declared that most OF
the assets of Cameron Currie & Co..
were In Hayden. Stone & Co.'s hands.
and that their sale would greatly jeop-
ardize the rights of creditors.
Stevenson 10 Bitter.
E. G. Stevenson made the FIRST talk.
He told Judge Mandell that the action
of Receiver Austin In bringing action
against Hayden. Stone 4 Co. was
gratuitous impertinence." The re-
ceiver had no right to establish pre-
ferred claims, he asserted, but should
rather fight them.
The receiver. Stevenson contended,
stands In the position Of Cameron Cur
RE & Co. and cannot attack the valid
ity Of transactions made by the latter
uIIQ WHICH. ~, lG0ulU uOS ktSCAA} <f>s4ee<<><s
Taking the bill Of complaint up y
detail, he declared that II Is q mass
of vague charges and allegations un-
supported by affidavits or proof and
not worthy OF being the basis OF an
Injunction. He further attacked Its
soundness by saying that 1t was not
properly sworn to by Receiver Austin.
This is not merely technical,
Stevenson declared impressively. III
this bill had been verified properly.
complaint for perjury would have been
filed by this time"
Creditors cannot avail themselves OF
the receivers help in lighting Hayden.
Stone & Co. he added. and must as
sert their rights by suing the latter In
the Massachusetts courts.
while the fund stays out OF the
hands OF the receiver and out Of the
Jurisdiction of the court, the receiver
cannot, by invitation to the creditors
TO file claims, confer Jurisdiction on
this court" he further asserted. They
have foreclosed themselves with re-
gard to these securities by the allie
CATION that Hayden, Stone & Co. are
amply responsible"
The receiver did not have the
courage to ask for an Injunction,
Stevenson asserted, but asked for one
II the court deem such action proper
Stevenson finally urged that the
only action the court could take would
be to have the receiver request the
tContinued Page seven.p