The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-03-20
Li6Eii SUIT FOR
MILLION AGAINST
GEO. W. LANDERS
New Britain Man Defendant
In New Phase of Light
ing Litigation.

! New York, March 20.-Raglan MO-
mand, general manager of the Public
Lighting corporation, who a week ago
defeated George NJ. Landers in a
$40, 600 libel suit brought against him,
has now sued Landers for 81 ,O1S,28S
damages. A co-defendant in the &C
ton is Arthur L. Iivermore.
Landers, formerly president of the
Connecticut Senate, is president of the
Pressure Lighting company LAYER
more is the secretary. In the libel
suit last by Landers it was charged
that in letters to the commissioner of
the Board of Water Supply, Gas and
Electricity, Momand accused Landers
OF conspiring with the Lighting
Trust and of attempting to wreck his
own company, of which Momand was
then vice president. Momand declared
his charges were true and the jury so
held.
In his damage suit Momand repeats
many of the charges he made at the
trial and names as the Lighting
ment company de1phia. 1t was
this concern, he asserts, which badly
damaged the Pressure Lighting Co. of
New York.
Subsidiaries of s.the Trust.''
Momand declares in his complaint
that for ten years the United Gas and
Improvement company has been an
"
orbitant price for the services rem
dered- to municipalities and states
that through interlocking directorates
and the ownership of stock the trust
has obtained control of these once
competing companies:
United Lighting and Heating COM
pany, We1sbach Street Lighting COM
pany of America, Pennsylvania Globe
Gas Lighting company, New York and
New Jersey Globe Lighting company,
Sun Vapor and Gas Street Lighting
company and the Patterson Lighting
company. Tt is declared that other
companies not named are in the so
called ring, and because of the large
number of concerns in the pool scores
of cities are being held up and charged
exorbitant rates
In regard to the situation in New
York Mr.. Momand says that in 1914
the only competitor of the United Gas
and Improvement company was the
Pressure Lighting company, which had
a few contracts in Brooklyn and which
had succeeded in causing a lowering |
of bids on the part of the trust Such
contracts as did not appear in the
name of the Philadelphia, company,
he asserts, were in the name of dunn |
mics.
During 1912, 1913 and 1914" Mr.. |
Momand swears in his complaint, tine
United Gas and Improvement Com |
attorneys corruptly and secretly APP
preached the individual defendants
Flanders and Livermore) and un-
lawfully alienated them from the
plaintiff and won them over to the
side of the Pressure Lighting Com
pany's competitors"
Other Charges
Momand goes on to say that he
was General Manager as we'll as Vice. /
President of the Pressure Company,
and that the defendants usurped his
duties and thwarted him in biding
for contracts which would have great
" benefited the company had the
bids been accepted.
Not only did they interfere with
the making of bids, he asserts but
prevented him from properly super
Visfng the work of the company, in
tercepted and sequestered his letters
and concealed orders for supplies
and his important papers. AS a re-
suit, he insists, the credit and good
viii Of the concern was injured in
the amount he names as damages.
= Besides asking money damages, the
plaintiff demands that the defendants
be removed as officers and directors
of the Pressure Lighting Company
and that they be made to account in
court for all their acts.
Make a General Denial
A general denial has been filed by
The defendants. They ask for a bill
Of particulars. They are anxious to
znow the names of the cities in
which the Pressure Lighting Com
lsany had contracts, just how the /,
rust operated to damage the concern
ind the names of the trust officials
Who are alleged to have approached
hem and alienated them from Mo-
nand.
! In reply to this. demand Momand
;a1Is the attention of the court to the
act that he has applied for an or
Ter compelling Landers and Liver
more to submit to examination be-
ore trial, and that they have APP
,eaIed to the Appellate Division. |
This appeal is pending, and he feels
hat he should not be made to fur
fish the bill of particulars until the
Appellate Division has decided
whether he may examine the defend {