Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-10-12
TESTIFY
IN SUGAR TRUST
sl0,000,000 SUIT
Give Value of Plants Acquired
by Havemeyers When Conn
bine Was Formed.

Expert testimony, with Henry Bosch
er, of New York, leading the array of
witnesses, featured the trial and the
S1o,0 900, 900 suit against the so-called
sugar trust, which was resumed before
Vice-Chancellor stevens today. The
court n a number of lawyers are in
terested in the accounting for hat
amount of common stock from the heirs
of Henry o. Havemeyer, the sugar
king. This stock is alleged to have
been given to him without consideration
at the time of the formation of the
combine. Some of the preferred stock
holders now say hat the issue was
fraudulent in the legal sense, as they
had no notice of 1t.
The suit was instituted by Norman
3. Tooker, of East Orange, as execu-
tor of the late Nathaniel Tooker, who
held some of the preferred stock. Sew
era1 of the holders of stock of this class,
who have Joined the suit, testified yes
tereday of their lack of knowledge of
the Issuance and declared generally
that the first they know about it was
when they read in the newspapers
about the suit started against the trust
in 1910. The present inquiry covers the
eAa ~ NAO COMPANY . PAohNo GU NHC
time the con- bine was effected, years
ago.
Mr.. Doscher, the general manager of
a sugar concern, gave expert testimony
to the effect that the refinery in Long
Island, which went into the combine,
was worth, exclusive of the land,
ST. oo,O 900. This, he said, included the
buildings and machinery.
Gaorna Dinkol of Iarzav CitU an
other expert along saccharine ines and
a mechanical engineer by profession,
was asked by Frederick j. Faulks, of
counsel for the complainant, what the
value of the buildings on the Long
Island plant was on June 2, 1900. He
placed 1t at $685., 23S, after Albert c..
Wall, Of counsel for the Havemeyer
interests. had objected, saying that the
witness was only an expert on con-
struction and cost. When asked by
Mr.. F'aulks what he considered the
value of the machinery in the plant he
placed It at 81, 094, 710.
Then he gave some more big figures,
covering the value of the plant of the
Mollenhauer Sugar Refining Company,
which also went into the combine.
He first said, in answer to a question.
that he was pretty positive that the
plant has been in operation since 1901.
What was the result of your exam
ination as to the value of the build
ings June 2, 1902"
"I placed the value at $419, S1S."
He estimated the value of the ma
chinery at $723. 055. and. in his opin-
ion, 81, 258, 773 would be the figure rep
resenting the total value of the build
irgs, machinery, docks and the bone
black used In the business.
The witness explained in detail on
the cross-examination by Mr.. Wall how
he got at the figures, saying that he
used the same method in each exami-
nation, making. the calculations md
-1nsn 7sumnling UP the sum total
Another expert, T. H. Muller, of New
York. an engineer, who examined the
Yonkers plant during the period under
inquiry. gave it as his opinion that the
buildings and machinery had a value
of $942.3 1892. He didn't know the maxi
mum capacity of the plant in 1900. How
the total was arrived at he testified
to with the aid of voluminous memo
randa
Albert Bunker, of New York city. who
as one of the directors of the old Ma
tional Sugar Refining Company, testi-
fed yesterday that the company's re-
lnery at the time of the merger vas
worth 81, $40, 000, while the option price
at which it was taken over was $780,
Gro the difference representing the good
will, on cross-examination, following
the experts, also CAV details as to how
the values were arrived at.
Richard v. Lindabury, who is one of
the lawyers for the complainant, after
the big figures J ID been duly recorded,
suddenly asked Mr.. Bunker:
did you ever authorize Mr.. Tooker
to agree to the issue of the common
stock of the company, either verbally or
in writing?"
mo, I don't think I ever did"
""Ever nave any conversation with
Mr.. Tooker with respect to the issue?'
81 don't remember" was the answer.
81 know common stock was to be is
sued, but l didn't know how much or
on whose account"
Mr.. Bunker also said that he never
knew anything about any considera-
ton covering the issue of the common
stock.