The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-06-27

WHICH prevented C00 safe OF C00 prop
erty of the Tacoma and Roche Harbor
Lime Co. to a syndicate of Eastern
capitalists who planned to establish
great cement plant at Roche Harbor;
has been decided by Judge Hanford.
of the United States district court.
in favor of Mr.. McMillin. who wins
complete victory upon every point.
In announcing the decision last
Saturday the Seattle Times. which
was not friendly to Mr.. McMlllin
during the trial. summarized the case
and the decision as follows:
"Cowell's principal contention was
that McMillin. as general manager of
the lime corporation. obtained advan-
tageous information regarding the
value of patent barrel making ma
chine offered for sale to the corpora
tion, misled the directors and after
obtaining their refusal to buy the
patent rights. took them himself and
made an unlawful bargain with the
corporation to sell his own barrels to
the concern. This barrel plant is
now alleged to be worth S300.00O
"Judge Hanford finds that McMillin
thoro uRhly explained the barrel ma
chine and strongly urged the board
to buy the plant. and when the board
! refused undertook on his own behalf
to make the plant, profitable. The
court holds the directors exercised
their judgment after full knowledge
and McMillin was entitled to the
benefits of his own Judgment.
"Anorher point raised by Cowell was
that the stockholders other than him.
self sold their stock to McMilIin
during the panic of fifteen years ago.
accepting as partial payment his notes.
Subsequently board of McMillin s
creation. Cowell declared. granted
McMillin an increase in salary from
Sc. 900 to s12. 600 year and Cowell
maintained McMilIin paid for the
lime company stock from this money.
''Judge Hanford finds the sale of
stock was legal and that McMillin' g
close application to the lime COM
pany's affairs and the shrewd business
ability with which he managed the
concern entitled him to the higher
salary. CoweIl is beaten at practically
every point.
In part, the coult's decision regard
ing the "barrel contract held by
McMillin, which was the vital question
involved in the litigation. is as fol-
lows:
s'There is another side of the case
which the court will consider. The
board of trustees of the corporation
was composed of capable business men
of good repute. with Independence
and f1rmness of character. They
we're impressed with the belief that
McMillin was the right man to con-
troll the business of the corporation
and that he would conduct it sue
cessfully. His intelligence. strength,
devotion of time and thought to the
business and constant anxiety for it's
success. inspired them with confidence.
In the records OF their meetings
they expressed confidence and approx
al OF his management. He did not
have to deceive them. nor bargain
with them in order to secure their
assent to his designs.
"Reposlng confidence in him. they
voluntarily deferred to his judgment
in most of the important transactions
but in one notable instance they did
not defer to him. The explanation
for this deviation from the ordinary
course is given in their testimony.
refer to the refusal of the corpora
tion to accept proposal made through
McMillin for the sale or assignment
of right or license to use patented
invention for the manufacturing of
barrel material.
"When the proposal was made that
invention had not been developed
sufficiently to demonstrate its value
and the majority of the trustees being
bankers. which is equivalent to saying
that they were cautious and alert to
discern clouds above the financial
horizon. were unwilling to permit
the corporation to undertake an
| experimental enterprise. the expense
and results Of which we're necessarily
! uncertain.
"a iabored argument has been
made to convince the court that
MoMillin cunningly withheld from
/ his associates true information as to
the merits Of the invention in order
to acquire the patent rights personally