Arizona republican., 1916-02-08
MADD0CK WINS
 COLUMBIA CASE
Complicated Case Which Involves Local Amuse- meht House Decided By Superior Court. Maddock Now In Full Possession

1 In the superior court yesterday Judge 1 E. C. Stanford rendered his decision in the case of Thomas Maddock vs. 1 Columbia Amusement Co, J. D. Hal stead and others, which as a case in 1 equity held the attention of the court i for five days last week.
 The court, in it's oral announcement | found in favor of the contentious of l plaintiff MaddOck, apparently on prac- i tically every point rendering judgment against the amusement company for
 an amount less than $l,700, which will
 be ascertained from the accounting in | favor of a claim held by J. R. Halsted,
 it being conceded by the plaintiff in
 the case that on this item the amuse-
 ment company was probably responsi- | ble for some amount.
 The case had it's inception a year or
 so ago when the amusement company borrowed 5000 upon a contract made
 with T. E. Pollock of Flagstaff and
 afterward assigned to one Joseph John | son. The evidence showed however, i that Mr Maddock has assumed the responsibility for the loan, and was | the one who really provided the money | at that time. In order to clear the company of all indebtedness it bor- l rowed the S9,000 and a contract was entered into, under the terms of which J. D. Halsted agreed to pay off the then | existing indebtedness of the company and agreed to be reimbursed for such payment from the proceeds of the bus mess within year. which ended June | 10, 1915. J. R. HalSted, son of J. D. | Halsted was president of the com 1 pany and the business was managed by him. J. D. Halstead claimed that the net profits of the business did not sat l isfy his claim and in June, 1915, a stockholders meeting was held upon the call of the then president. J. R. Hal stead, who transferred shares of stock to G. $. Cunningham, Harold Baxter and one Brooks. Cunningham and | Baxter were elected directors at the stockholders meeting. Madock, who | was stockholder, protested alleging | that the transfer of stock to Cunning l ham and Baxter was not legal and that l Halsted was attempting to put dummy directors on the board. At the stock 1 holders meeting the claim of J. D. Hal stead in the sum of approximately S3,- l 100 was allowed in contravention of l the contract. Maddock on behalf of 1 himself and the other Stockholders of 1 the company commenced a suit and enioined the holding of meetings of the 1 new directors. However before the in | junction was served a meeting was al l legged to have been held. and promis- sory notes were issued by the com
 
 J. R. Halstead for $1,SOO, and to Frank M. Lalley for $675.0O The last two
 were assigned to J. D. Halstead and | immediately he commenced suit and
 attached the property being the Col | umbia Theater MT Maddock imme- 1 diately amended his complaint in equi-
 ty and last July the court dissolved the
 attachment and enjoined the Halsteads
 and directors to whom they had trans | ferred stock from interfering with the | business of the company
 | The present trial was on the issues
 in the whole case. The net result is
 that the note for s3,7OO in favor of J.
 D. Halstead and the Lalley note in the
 sum of s675.O0 is voided by the decis-
 ion of the court as is also the note
 given to J. R. Halsted, although the court allowed the latter in extent to
 the amount of money actually ad l vanced.
 | The case was very complicated one. 1 Just what the plans of the present owner of all the stock, tMr Maddock)
 are for conducting the business could
 not be ascertained yesterday It is
 hoped, however, that d way may be found to reopen the house
 The plaintiff, MT Maddock, was rep
 resented by H. M. Fennemore, and | the defendants, J. D. Halstead and eth
 CTS, by Alexander and Christy. and
 Baker and Baker. The latter upon the
 oral rendition of the decision, gave mo- | tice of appeal