Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-12-20
SUE VAN BRIGGLE
FOR $243,262.79
CONTINUED From Page one.)

4IEOUUU par Ndlue OF the capital StOCh.
This was done, according to the charges.
Five hundred Of the shares were trans
mitted to Rominger, the complaint re-
cites.
Following this meeting, it Is charged,
Van Briggle caused the number of the
board of directors to be enlarged by sell
ing to various individuals the few re-
naming shares of the authorized stock.
Prominent persons were selected on the
ground that their names would make
easier the sale of stock in the future,
the complaint sets out.
The next meeting Of the stockholders
was held Jan. s. 1918, at which time
Van Briggle made pretended report"
that the company would soon reach
quantity production of carburetors ana
that it was now on a substantial paying
basis, which representations "the said
defendant well knew to be false and I'M
true" the complaint continues.
NEXT INCREASED
STOCK TO $500, coo.
The next step, according to the com
plant, was to increase the stock to
100000, and the entering into contract
with Van Briggle to pay him a royalty
of 80 cents on each carburetor manu-
featured and sold. 1t is charged that
none OF the stockholders had any knowl-
Van Briggle also caused a contract to
be entered into providing that IL the
company should become insolvent the
contract should be forfeited, it is
charged.
Despite the fact that the company had
already suffered great losses, according
to the complaint, Van Briggle made the
statement at q meeting Of stockholders
on Jan. "A, 1919, that the business had
Melted great profits and that he had
invented another carburetor on the "ar-
plane principle which he said was
worth $4,000. AS a result he was
voted r royalty OF so cents on each
carburetor. 1t Is charged.
The second increase in CAPITAL stock
came Feb. IL. 1920. when the capital was
increased to S5O1O00, the complaint
recites. 1t is charged that the increase
was brought about so that Van Brlggie
could be paid large commissions from
the sale OF the capital stock, although
no contract containing this provision had
been entered into.
Meanwhile, according to the story re-
lated in the complaint, the widely adyer-
tised Van Briggle shock absorber came
INTO being. 1t is charged Van Briggie
announced he had entered into an agree
H.
to develop the shock absUrbers.
CHARGES he MADE
PERSONAL CONTRACT
The complaint charges that Van
Briggle then proceeded 10 make a per
sonRl contract with Boswell whereby Bos-
well was 10 receive % cents for each set
OF shock absorbers sold and went into
contract with the company whereby
Van Briggle was TO receive - for each
set OF shock absorbers sold. It Is
charged he deceived the board Of d.
rectors as to the terms OF his contract
with Boswell ard succeeded In obtain
ing another 81 for each set Of shock
absorbers sold.
Van Briggle then, according 70 the
charges. cauaed 10 be listed on the books
Of the company as assets the contracts
for the two types OF carburetors an
for the shock ahsorbers at total Of
$685.. 900 Following this action. 1t is al
legged Van Briggle caused numerous stock
sales to be made at prices ranging from
800 to 500 a share. II is charged he
caused these shares Of stock 20 be issued
but kept the proceeds for his own use.
damaging the stockholders TO the extent
Of 81 600.
At tho next meeting. Jan. H. 1920, Il
is charged Van Briggle presented a false
statement purporting 10 show great prot
It's for the company, whereas Il had suf-
fercd loss * approximately 100000.
II was az this point that the thirty
ing company hit a snag. suit was
brought IN Federal Court ny Robert
Hassler. charging infringement Of patent
on the shock absorbers. As a result. the
Van Brlggle company was enJoined from
manufacturing the shock DISORDERS. and
according TO the complaint the company
paid to Hassler S1,365 In royalties, paid
attorneys fees amounting to 81 667.49 ana
was forced to destroy castings valued
at $4,000.
SAYS EVEN THIS DID
NOT STOP VAN BRIGGLE.
This did not interfere with Van Brig
Cle's operau tons, however. according To
the complaint It is charged he induced
the board Of directors 70 declare a 10
yer cent dividend ard Their borrowed
$4,000 from a bank with which TOT pay
the dividend. The meeting at which, this
was accomplished is the one said to have
been opened with n prayer. II IS charged
Van Briggle made the statement that
the company could declare a 100 per cent
dividend on the outstanding capital stock
On the basis OF this statement, 1t IS
charged. Van Briggie sold large amount
Of additional stock at 5000 share ana
pocketed a 20 per cent commission and
arranged for the division Of the com
mission Of other stock statesmen with
himself.
The next move. according TO the com
plant, was the purchase OF n large
amount of machinery and the payment
OF n commission Of S730.30 to one OF the
directors.
On May Is, 1919, It is charged Van
Brlggle caused a stock certificate for
200 shares to be made out to him with
out authority and directed the book
keeper not to inform the board of d.
rectors OF his action These 200 shares
he sold for 4 total Of $4,000. It Is
charged, and converted the money to
his own use. Later he told the directors
that he had subscribed for this stock
and he was permitted to pay for it at
the rate of 800 per share out of the
royalties he received from the company,
according to the complaint. 1t is charger
ne credited only $500 on this account.
It Is charged that In order to increase
the sales Of stock Van Brigglo induced
the company to spend the sum Of 500. 900
for advertising.
FALSE INCOME TAX
REPORT CHARGED.
Van Briggle went so far in "defraud-
Ing" the stockholders, it Is charged, that
be caused q false income tax return to
be filed with the Federal Government
and caused SLIP to be paid as income
lax, notwithstanding the fact that the
business of the company had been con
N,,,t OF ,I,.,,s To-