The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1909-04-23
BREWERY TROUBLE
Application for Receiver
for Pa. Cent. Brewing Co.
HONESDAlE BREWERY INTERESTED
Charges Of Mismanngement and
Extravaganza Not Sustained by
the Evidence - Company
Will Probably Go on
as of Old.

The application for a receiver for
the Pennsylvania Central Brewing
company, which is pending in the
United States Court in Scranton, is
likely to be refused by Judge Arch
bald, and it is expected that the
company, with which the A. Hart
ung brewery of this place is con-
nected, will go on as it has been do
ing.
A bill in equity was filed three
weeks ago in United States court
against the company by ]. Edward
Ackley, as plaintiff, charging gross
mismanagement by the officers and
alleging that the company is in
solvent.
The hearing on the bill was set
down for 10 o'clock Wednesday
forenoon and instead OF calling wit
nesses, the evidence was in the
form of affidavits on both sides for
the purpose of confining the issue
to the material facts, and dispos-
ing of the case quickly.
1t was averred in several affidav-
it's for the defendant that the suit
was instigated by John G. Persch,
of New York, with the sole purpose
of forcing combination of all the
brewery interests in Lackawanna,
Luzerne and Wayne counties, and
that the plaintiff Ackley, is a New
York lawyer who has been Persch' s
counsel for good many years, and
who is but nominal stockholder
of the company at present and only
so to give him a standing in court
which he otherwise would not have.
Judge Wheaton and George Lie
wellyn, of Wilkes-Barre, and Judge
Carpenter, of Scranton, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Judges Knapp
and Kelly and M. j. Martin, for the
defendant.
Judge Archibald said at noon that
he would dispose of the matter
forthwith, if he could see his way
clear to do so, and from an incident
which cropped out during the hear
ing it was thought probable that
his decision would be in favor of
the company.
The judge incidentally inquired if
any attempt had been made by the
plaintiff to have some of the mat
ters complained of adjusted with
out going to the extent of making
the move for a receiver.
To throw company or any busi-
ness into the hands of a receiver, it
is necessary to affirmatively show
that it is insolvent. While the
plaintiff makes allegations to this
effect in his bill by averring that
the sinking fund provision for the
fifty thousand dollars worth of bonds
due "this year has not been met,
the company shows that it got the
consent of majority of the bond
holders; and that every bill, note,
claim and obligation of every sort
and kind from the first day the
company was organized to the pres
ent has been met and that now the
company has sixty-five thousand
dollars in bank to it's credit and to-
tai assets readily convertible into
Sdoh III IHe SUN VI lOuT nuuQr6Q
thousand dollars.
To put the matter into a nutshell
the company claims, by affidavit of
it's treasurer that it has two dollars
to pay every dollar of claims or OBJ
legations.
The bill asking for the receiver
complains that large and extrava-
CANT sum is paid to officers for
work done by subordinates, that
the company has run behind two
hundred thousand dollars in 1908,
that it failed to make the last sink
ing fund provision for fifty thous-
and dollars of it's bonds, and in ad-
dition to the excessive salaries to
the officers large sums are expend-
ed in expense accounts under the
guise of being on business trips to
other cities.
The affiants in the affidavits for
the plaintiff are George G. Brown
and Thomas B. McMann.