Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-25

stock of the Georgetown Gas Light
Company, standing in the name of the
Washington company. may not have
the plain sailing that the District au-
thorities thought it would have. OPP
position which may prove a serious
obstacle was encountered today Whea
the answer of the Georgetown Gas
Light Company was filed In the i)is-
trict Supreme Court Ly Attorney VIII
liam G. Johnson. The Georgetown
company was named as co-defendant
in the suit of the District
Ownership Is Denied.
The Georgetown company denies that
the Washington company is the owner
of $500 shares of it's stock and by in
ference denies that the Washington
company has become amenable to. the
penalty of dissolution provided by the
La Toilette anti-merger act. The
Washington company, 1t is claimed, has
never validly owned the stock in aues-
t,on and since June 3, 1912. which Is
pr1tr to the passage of the act, has
never exercised nor attempted to exer-
else any control of the stock or to Gi-
rect the affairs of the Georgetown
company.
Even If the court should decide to-,
dissolve the Washington company, At
torney Johnson for the Georgetown
company declares, the court is without
jurisdiction to compel sale of the
stock, even II the Washington COM
pany had title to it. He points out In
the answer that by the act Of Congress
relied on by the District of Columbia
the right of the District Supreme Court
to compel a corporation having pos
session of shares of stock in violation
OF the terms Of the act to DISPOSE of
the stock is confined to foreign public
utii1ty corporations and foreign or
local holding corporations 1t is sug-
gested that the Washington Gas Light
company is neither q foreign public
utility corporation nor a foreign or
local holding company, but is a public
utility company organized under law
or the United States, as to which the
court is only empowered by the act to
decree a dissolution Of the corporation.
Sale Not Possible, It Il safo.
In the process of dissolution. It is
claimed, no sale could be decreed be-
cause the shares constitute no part of
the assets of the Washington Gas Light
Company
The Georgetown company. after denv.
ing the validity of the holding of the
stock and setting forth its claim that the
acquisition OF the stock was in viola
ton of the charter rights of the Wash.
ington company, and that the latter CON
Germ could not fulfill the obligations set
oy law on shareholder of the George
town company, the attention of the court
Is called to the suit in equity filed Janu-
ary Il. 1913, by the Georgetown COM
pany for a cancellation of the alleged
lnVand certificate which forms the basis
Oh the dlssolution suit. This proceeding
Is pending and undisposed Of
me ACT OF Congress Incorporating
the Georgetown Company requires thai
each stockholder shall be indiyiduaIIv
liable for all the debts and Liabilities
or the company however contracted or
incurred The point is made that the
Washington company is incanahie in
law of sustaining such liabilitv or he
ing suable thereon The entire LA
b1l1ty of the company amounting to
S575, 1000, is therefore, it is urged, borne
soieiy Dy the owners Of the other 247O]
SHARES of the capital stock without anS
right to claim. or exact any contribu-
tion from the Washington Gas Light
Company.
Bought in Open Market.
The court is also advised that the
Washington company purchased it's
holdings in the open market and never
paid anything therefor to the George
town company.
Even II it had paid the Georgetown com
pany the sum of S172 600, which the stock
cost the Washington company, the George
town concern points out that under pre-
tense of ownership and before June. 1872
the Washington company "wrongfully
took from the profits of this company and
converted to its own use and to the use
of its stockholders more than $195, ,OOO' in
dividends. The suggestion Is made that
the Washington company has received in
dividends $4,000 more than the stock
cost 1t.
Answering the paragraph OF the Dis
Hfyl to- oh l. Ill
Washington company reported to Con-
gress that 1t owned $3.50 shares Of the
Georgetown company, the latter corpora
ton says 1t Is in no way responsible for
such report. 1t denies that 1t can be
bound in any way by such statement by
the Washington company.
Stockholding Method.
i, Referring to the discovery sought of 1t
by the prayer of the petition of the Dis
trict of Columbia. the Georgetov-1 com
pany says its information Is that all the
$3.50 shares were paid for by the Wash
ington company to the persons from
whom acquired with the funds Of the
Washington company. The court Is told
that the shares Of stock at divers times
and in varying number were transferred
on the stock books of the Georgetown
company to the names of B. H. Bartol.
Charles C. Glover. Henry c. Winship'
william B. Orme and John r. Mclean
"who held the stock secretly for the
Washington Gas Light Company" hut
i'm what names they were originally pur-
chased by the Washington company is
not known.
No information is In it's possession.
saws the company, as to the dates of the
payments by the Washington company
nor the amounts thereof. save that 1t is
Informed the aggregate cost was $172 OO4
AS it's bonds are unregistered and pass
e. he