Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-02-27
SUES PLAUTS FOR
INCOME PER CENT.
Charles Michael Began as ST.
a Week CIerk-Now De-
mands SIS, 900. I

There was to have been a hearing
before Judge Francis Childs as spe-
cial master in Chaneery Court todav
in the odd case of Charles Michael,
of 112 Second avenue, this city,
against L. S. Plaut & Co. NV
Michael was their former advertis-
ing manager.
The suit is brought to compel the
company to render a statement of its
profits for the past ten years. so thai
Mr.. Michael may estimate what he is
entitled to by a contract he alleges.
and which the company denies, was
made in 1903. The alleged contract
recited he was to get per cent. Of
the company's entire profits from that
year on. and off-hand, Mr.. Michael
believes he is entitled to something
over $4,000. The company declares
he isn't entitled to a cent.
When Mr.. Michael began his career
with the dry-goods firm some twenty
odd years ago he was made clerk
at a salary of SIT week. The firm
took good care of him, and in 1909,
a little more than ten years later, 10
was receiving 800 a week, or, as tina
bill states it. $500 a year.
Became Sort of Factotum.
For this salary he was advertising
man, supervising agent, business pro-
/ moter and general manager, and the
arduous duties impaired his health
he says. The company says the titles
were, for the most part, assumed,
and that 500 a week was a perfect
ly good salary for the work Mr..
Michael was doing.
1t was in this year that Mr..
Michael claims he was complimented
for his good work and told that his
salary wouldn't be raised any NOR,
but instead he would be recognized
as a cooperative member of the firm
and would receive, in addition to his
800 week, per cent. of the corn
pany's profits. In giving his estimate
of what the company earns in year,
Mr. Michael says more than a mil
| lion dollars is taken in annually.
Firm Explains Contract.
In their answer, Emma Plaut and
| Louis Plaut, who, with Oscar Michael,
comprised the L. S. Plaut Company
at the time the alleged contract was
made, and are named as defendants,
/ explain the contract by saying thar
| there was no definite agreement -
give Mr.. Michael any interest in the
company's profits other than his sal
ary, but it was mentioned that wheu
the business was enlarged the com
pany would not be adverse to puttins,
| Michael on a percentage basis, anu
| that he might even be given per
cent. interest. On this account the
company is willing to give Michael
! S13. 900, which they believe is a fair
return. All this while he was draw
| ing his 800 a week, and in addition
to that received $1,000 in two install
ments. He says he accepted this n
the belief that it was part of his
. per cent. The company says it was
a loan and Michael knew it, and It
| is charged as a loan on their DOCKS.
A peculiar feature of the case Is
| that Oscar Michael, a former mem
/ Der of the firm, and one of the de-
PENDANTS, is the complainant
brother. and his story is little dill
ferent. He declares his brother did
have such a contract made orally
while he was a member of the firm,
and he is willing to pay his share
of the ) per cent. agreement il the
other members of the company VIII
do likewise. He has filed separate
answer to the bill
The "loan,p he says, was loan IN
name only and represented part Of
his brothers dividends. 1t was cal
ried on the company's books as A
loan. he declares, to facilitate the
keeping of the records until an ad-
ustment of the company's profits
was made. This was done year ago
he claims and therefore his brother
is now entitled to his $4,000 or "a
much more as an accounting shows
he should receive.
Charles Michael, the complainant,
resigned his position last March.
The case was set down for today.
but it was postponed by mutual
agreement. It probably will be
brought up for a hearinfg some time
in March. Jacob L. Newman is at
torney for Mr.. Michael. The defend
ants are represented by Louis Hood.