Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1910-04-22
PRUDENTIAL SUIT
REVEALS SURPLUS
DIVISION METHODS
New York Expert Quizzed on
Plans in Ohio and New
Jersey.
CORES CONCLUSIONS
VERIFIED BY WITNESS
Blanchard Fight for $l6,0OO,-
600. Distribution Among
Stockholders Still On.

When the trial of the suit brought
against the Prudential to compel it to
distribute It's more than $16,00o,000 sur
plus among the stockholders instead
OF the policy holders, in which Leon F.
Blanchard and others figure as COM
plainants, was taken up again before
vice-C chancellor Howell in the Court of
Ckancery today, S. Herbert Wolfe, an
expert actuary of New York, who has
done work in many States of the
Union, and who had testified yester-
day that he had gone over the work OF
John K. Gore, the Prudentials ac-
tuary in connection with the points at
issue and found that their accounts
squared exactly, was called again to the
witness stand.
He was cross-examined by John r.
Hardin, who together with former At
torney- General Robert H. McCarter
represents the complainants.
After he had told about his expert
ence in Ohio and other States, Mr..
Wolfe told specifically of the work he
had done in connection with a certain
company in the State named as ac-
tuary when called upon by the insur-
ance commissioners of Ohio. II was
the Union Central which he had ex-
amineo.
Q.-wnat was the problem before
you?
A.-To determine from the tests Of
one or two years whether tie premises
..,<t
were justified by the facts
Q.-Premises for what purpose?
A.-ADeterlnining the amount of the
participatiIg business The company
r,ade no actual calculation but took the
experience of forty years and assumed
that the experience OF nom participating
FOR. forty years would be the same as
the participating business for three
years I was retained to make a test
to determine whether the estimates
made were correct, according to my
m sthcds.
Q-The problem was this, was it not,
to find out whether there was 100000 of
the surplus of the company acquired
from the participating business?
A.-That was not what had to solve.
Q.-That was the problem in the case?
A.--No sir.
ct seems to nave been the prob
lcrn, was it not?
A.--No, sir.
Q.--Were you retained to determine
whether the ascertainment made by the
con.pany's actuaries that there was
s4oo. 600 received from participating
policies was correct or not?
A.--No. sir.
Reach Different Results.
g.C-you arrived at different results?
AYES. sir. | made an investigation
for two years.
Q.--And for that reason you say that
that Ohio case is like this?
A-There are points at variance.
O.--In this case, the Prudential, you
made a complete investigation of every
thing2
A-Yes. sir
ON that case, the Ohio, you made
ans investigation OF only two years?
A-Yes, sir.
o.-And you thought it was fair to
base an opiEion on the whole problem
onvtwo years?
Richard " LindabIry, of counsel for
the Prudential, objected to this ques-
ton. and then Mr.. Wolfe told about the
cal,,cn,ations he had made in the Ohio
.,-.n,,.rv,s cane and explained how the
-,,,t. y. arrivad at differed from those
Of tbe company's actuaries. AS to the
examination made for the Prudential he
a..,,e .,,at he and Mr.. Gore. its actu-
WISE suto ~. ,an,a resuitsy as he
sry, arriseu a. .ns ,rhar NJ Har-
had teslifieo yes'eus y,,s - o,,.stions
an nred ahotpel so' ~, an,s ,,,sthod
0-Dio you pursus s, .m as vo, aid
Will .ne onion
with ,ne frpoen'isi
81 o,u r -ob,sr,,
anu An, ~nA To- tha dis+ri-
~ s,,v,,Ir. between the
Dution "a n.rticinatinu
p1.ps par.ic'ps ;a,,str;al sndf ordi-
business an
ns,y rp,,e ,,I.;r.a ,roh,a,,, was the
-.airn,sat 30 tha s,,rn,ns between
pAl,lcipa.ns pa a'o M f'F ''S'f