Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-04-11
OTHERS JOIN IN
PRUDENTIAL FIGHT
WITH BLANCHARD
More Stockholders Seek Dis.
tribution of Sl6,OO0,00
Surplus.
FINAL HEARING TODAY
IN CHANCERY CHAMBERS
COmpany's Officers Deny the
Charges Made by Complain
ant-Their Answer.

When final hearing in the suit Of
Leon F. Blanchard against the Pru-
Dental Insurance Company of America
was called this morning by vice-Chan-
cellor Howell. John r. Hardin. of Pit
ney. Hardin & skinner, who with Rob-
ert II. McCartar is counsel for the COM
rlainant, announced 10 the court that
other stockholders had interviewed In
the suit and desired to ally themselves
with Mr.. Blanchard in his demands
that distribution of the 900 sur
among the stockholders. and not as has
been proposed by President John F.
Dryden and others. to the policy
holders
After gaining permission, Mr. Hardin
read the following names and the
amount of stock held by them. William
w. Blanchard, 1857 s6 shares; Emiline
C. Blanchard, 2,c00.2S; Effie b. Walter.
e43.4s; Cora NJ. Macon, 3S1.4 .46; Margaret
B. Blanchard. 25S.4s; Fannie E. Lake.
1900; Clifton Searles. 446.44: John Ill
ingworth, 500, Percy G. Hart, 32L74;
Edith H. Krementz. 32174; E. Clifton
Searles. trustee for Cora M aeon.
124.7o: Z. Clifton Searles, trustee tor
Harold H. Searles. 124.70; Eleanor Har-
ner. 673-20; Matthew I. Gay, 325.S3,
H. B. Barnet. Z; Mrs. Eva L. Brooks,
l40; William B. Ginnell. S0.64. This
forms the list of opposition to President
Dryden and, coupled with the 725 shares
of the original complainant, Blanchard,
is but d small part Of the outstanding
issue of A., 1000 shares of stock.
Identified with Richard v. Linda
bury. general counsel for the company.
and Edward Duffield. it's solicitor, Is
former United States Senator John c.
Spooper. who has been specially en-
gagged.
Seated about the table when pro-
ceedings opened were former Senator
Dryden. his son, Forrest Dryden; Uzal
McCarter, head of the Fidelity Trust
Company; DR. Leslie D. Ward, vice
president of the Prudential, and many
other prominent men.
No evidence was submitted at the
morning session. the entire time being
taken up by the reading of the bill OF
complaint by Mr.. McCarter, and the
answer by Mr.. Duffield. Practically all
of the facts alleged by Mr.. Blanchard
were brought out at the time OF the
hearing on the request for a prelimin-
ary injunction restraining the djstribu-
ton of the vast surplus to begin on
July 1 last, and which was refused by
Vice-Chancellor Howell. At that time.
the latter in his opinion said that a
six months distribution of the surpl9s
at the rate planned by the company s
officials would involve but small sum
comparatively, but that an Injunction
would wreak a fearful amount of dam
age, a recovery from which was ques-
tionable This also, combined with the
fact that but 725 shares were repre-
sented on the request against bal
ance of SO, ,275 shares would not warrant
the injunction 1t was also expressly
stated in the opinion that the real
merits of the prayer for injunction were
not touched upon at that time.
Prudentinps Answer.
Mr.. Blanchard claims that the dis
tribution of the surplus belongs to the
stockholders as rightful profit on the
money they invested in the stock of the
company and not to the policy-holders.
who have no provision for this money
in the contract contained in the policies
they hold.
It charges that extravagant salaries
are being paid to the officers of the
company, and that the offices are
fitted up in a manner entirely too ex-
pensive. As to these allegations the
answer of the company reads:
''As to the allegations contained IN
paragraph twenty-eight of said bill Of
complaint. defendants admit that some
of the stockholders of the Prudential
Company have for years demanded
larger dividends on the par value OF
their shares. and that the board of
directors have thought IT unwise to &C
cede to such demands. They deny. how
ever, that the sale of the stock of the
4 Prudential Company to the Fidelity
Trust Company in the year 1902 was
made in the expectation that the minor
| ity of the stockholders would thereby
be rendered helpless to enforce any
| just demand for increased dividends
beyond the 10 per cent. rate.
'They also deny that the claims of the
| complainant and other stockholders
who agree with him that larger divi-
dends ought to be declared, have been
| ignored by the directors and their de-
mands for proper and just considera-
tion for the increase of dividends re-
| fused attention, or that methods and
| policies have been devised and enforced
| by the directors for the purpose of
| keeping down, as far as possible. addi-
tions 10 the profits of the company dis
tributahle TO the stockholders thereof.
"They say that on the contrary the
said claims of the stockholders have
been carefully considered by the direc-
tors and that the course taken by the
! latter in refusing to increase the divf-
dends to the stockholders has. in the
Judgment of the board of directors, been
NOT only just and fair to the stockhold-
ers, but has been necessary to the pros
perity and safety of the company"
Continuing further. the answer says:
Further answering. the defendants
say that the remainder of said surplus
of SIG, ,69s, $50 consists OF the two assign
ments made. one in the year 1908 and
the other in the year 1909. from the