Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1910-07-15
OVERALL CASE BEGUN
CorSer and Whitaker Tell About
Schenectady Deal
Claim They Acted Independently, but
Telegram and Letters Required Some
ENplanation-Another Hearing Aug. 3.

ExplanatIon--Another Hearing Aug. 3.
Testimony in an action brought by the
cIooker, Corser & Mitchell company, Of
which w. II. Proctor is president, against
James =. Hooker, William II. Corser and
Charles y. whitaker of Schenectady, N.
Y, was taken in Rutland Tuesday and
Wednesday before Marvelle c. Webber,
master appointed by the court Of chan
Gerry. Clarke G. Fiu.s and Robert g,
Bacon appea red for the orator and Her
bert c. Barber and Frank E, Barber for
the defendants, and the testimt nv was
taken down by Miss Katherine c. Dun
levy, stenOgrapher. Although the stem
ographers report fills nearly 800 page.
only a beginning Of the case has been
made, and various hearings are in pros
pect, with a likelihood that it will be
necessary to take testimony in Vermont,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New
York and perhaps other states. The
hearing was adjourned to August 8, in
Brattleboro. Mr. Hooker was not pres
ent at the Rutland hearing, being con-
fined to his home as the result of an in
jury but Mr.. Corser and Mr.. Whitaker
were present and were the only witnesses
who testified, being oss-examined by
Mr.. Fits
AS is well known, the three defendants
formerly were members of the Hooker,
Corser & Mitchell company and are now
proprietors of the Mohawk Overall com
pany plant in Schenectady. The orator
claims that the defendants, while mem
bers of the old Hooker, Corser & Mitch
ell company and processing to act
in behalf of the company, en-
tered into negotiations for the establish
ment Of a similar plant in Schenectady,
and bought site which they converted
to their own use and erected thereon the
Mohawk overall factory. The orator
charges also that the defendants hired
| away employees of the company, that they
| TOOK options for large quantities of cloth
! in the name of the company which they
! afterwards took over to themselves that
| they took from the companys treasury
| large amount of money to pay at
| torneys' fees which were not for the ben
eft of the orator, and that they did, while
! directors of the company, make copies
and duplicates of plans, patterns and de-
signs and took them away to use in the
| Schenectady plant.
On the basis of those five charges the
! Hooker, Corser & Mitchell company asks
! that decree be made giving them the
| option of taking the site on which the
Mohawk factory stands or the bonus
which they claim was paid the defend
ants by certain Schenectady parties in
| consideration of their establishing a
| plant in that city. In the event such a
decree is made the orator claims that the
| defendants would have no right to re-
| they may have erected upon the site, in
other words that the whole Schenectady
plant would righfully belong to the
| Brattleboro concern. When the suit was
brought the property OF the defendants
! was attached to the amount of $4,000,
but the attachment afterwards was re-
moved upon the filing of sufficient bond.
The hearing in Rutland was for the
| purpose of inquring into the various
| transactions of the defendants relative to
the Schenectady establishment. After
| opening statements by Mr. Fits and
| Herbert G. Barber as to what each side
claimed the time was taken up largely
by Mr.. Fits in cross-eXamining Mr..
Whitaker and Mr. Corser in the order
given, the defense putting on no wit
| nesses.
A general denial of the allegations was
made by the defendants, and the cross
examination related principally to the al
legged conversion of the site and the al
legged hiring away of employees. The facts
were brought out that in the spring OF
1893 the defendants, while owning a ma
jority of the capital stock of the Hooker,
Corser & Mitchell company, made plans
to start an overall business in Schenec-
tady and that the expenses of themselves
and certain employees in making trips to
that city were paid out of the company
treasury. 1t was asserted that Mr.. Proc
tor, as a stockholder, tried to ascertain
that the defendants refused to inform
him. The witnesses admitted that ex'
penses for trips to Schenectady were
paid for by the company and that the ne
gotiations then in progress were in the
interest of the company, but they said
that the properties examined were moi
suitable for the purposes desired anC
that no further action regarding then
was taken. They stated however, tha
some time afterwards they individually
but not in their corporate capacities
took up the matter again, having beer
offered a suitable site and differences
/ having arisen between them and Mr.
, Proctor, finally closing a deal for sit
, for which they paid $4,000. None of th'
expenses of the later dealings, they said
/ was paid for by the company.
In regard to the orators averment tina
the defendants hired away employees tn
: testimony of the witnesses was that the
hired none of the Hooker, Corser
Mitchell company's employees until afte
those employees severed their relation
with that company. 1t was difficult 10
the witnesses to explain, however tel
egram and some letters which Mr.. Fit
= had in his possession. Letters writte
by Mr.. Corser to agents of the Hooker
4 | Corser & Mitchell company In May, l9N
which was about the time the contrac
8 for the Schenectady site was made, nc
4 | tilted the agents that the company ha
d facilities. and the letters were signe
a by the Hooker Corser & Mitchell CON
d pany.
4 The telegram to which reference ha
n been made also was a poser for Mr.. Col
: ser, who acknowledged that he sent !
d It will be remembered that during tn
J. litigation between Mr.. Proctor and h
o partners in the old Hooker, Corser
}, Mitchell company, those partners bein
x the defendants in the present suit, M
:, Hooker, Mr.. Corser and Mr.. Whitak'
Q gave Mr.. Proctor the option of buyiH
" their interest in the business or Of sci
: ing his interest to them, ffxed pri'
for the stock being named. Mr. Pro
y tor bought the stock owned by his par
10 ners June IA, 1909. On June the tel
It gram in question signed by the three d
e PENDANTS in the present action, was SCI
e to the Hooker, Corser & Mitchell cor
d pany's manager in Chicago sayin
d Think sold to Proctor and asking hi
st not to make any proposition to Proet
d or anybody else until he had received
letter from them.
The other questions in issue will
fought out at later hearings.