The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-02-24
PROCTOR FILES SUIT.
Ties Up BrattlebOrO Firm By Injanc-
tion Writ.

Brattleboro, Feb. ga bin in chan
Gerry with injunction attached was Gle
IN the county clerks Office yesterda
afternoon in the case Of William y
Proctor against James r Hooker
Maude r. Hooker. William II. corse
and Charles d. Whitaker, giving tn
details OF the ahairs Of the Hooker
corser Mitchell company, makers o
overalls aud garments, which make Al
interesting story.
The injunction signed by Chancellor
u. NJ. Butler of Rutland and served by
Deputy Sheriff A. W. y. wilkins re
strains the defendants from hinderinl
OF obstructinq Mr.. Proctor in the con
dpct Of the business and gives him ac
cess Ia the mail, bank accounts and
hooks and also restrnins the defend
ants from attempting 10 act under Il
meeting Of Jan. rs. when Mr.. Proctor
was turned down as director and
Maude +. Hooker wife of James +,
Hooker, was elected in his place.
The business was bought Of for
mer partnership in 1902 for S12o'Vvo'
Mr. Hooker succeeding his father, inc
late Col, George W. Hooker. as presi'
dent. Mr.. Hooker took $50 shares, Mt.
Corser $50 shares. Mr. Whitaker 400
shares and Mr.. Proctor 300 shares at
500 a share. and all we're made direc-
tors The business has been exceeding
Nv profitable and the shares are now
worth 1888.
Mr.. Proctor says the net yearly profit
since the new company was organized
has been more than 40 per cont on the
capital stock after paying salaries;
that in dividends and compensation
there has been paid TO him $4,000, 10
Mr.. Corser $4,000, 10 Mr. Whitaker
Sss,000 and 10 Mr. Hooker s5s,000:
that surplus Of s63,700 has been ac-
cumulated. that the firm has owed no
debts tho past three years aud that
the results Of the business are in large
measure attributed 70 his management.
When the business was bought n con
tract was entered into providing as
TO the salaries and how the profits Of
tho business should be divided Mr..
Proctor saws that before the begin.
ming OF this year the other directors
rlrnned to defraud him and deprive
him Of his authority in the manage
ment, 20 deprive of his salary and com
pensation due under the contract and
TO break the contract. He alleges the
never had bylaws, but that
Mr.. Hooker fraudulently procured his
signature to an agreement for the adop-
ton Of bylaws. The annual meeting
took place Jan. rs. Counsel was pres
emit. but not In Mr.. Prpctor's interest
By laws werd adopted, but Mr.. Proc.
tor says they we're not to his liking
end that he did not vote for them.
When the vote for directors was
counted it was found that Mrs. Hooker
had been elected director in Mr.. Proc
tors place. Immediately at the close
Of the meeting Mr.. Hooker, acting for
the other directors, delivered to Mr..
Proctor a written notice that from
that date the contract was terminated.
Mr.. Proctor was excluded from parti
,ipating in the business, access to the
nail and bank accounts was denied him
md new books we're put on the Office. !
Mr.. Proctor asks the court 10 enforce |
specific performance OF the contract IL
Z is determined that il can be lawfully
sarrieh out, otherwise to appoint re-
'eiyer to liquidate the property and
iivide the proceeds.
The matter will be heard 1T the |
April term OF county court.