, 1922-04-21
TOOK EVIDENCE FROM RECORDS|N
BA|R OFFICE, ACCOUNTANT SAYS

- @~A1L ~
Clark and the Omar company the at
'ttude of the only beneicsnSSof the
dealings between the Bair company
and ths Reasoning Of which
they claim In their ~pieafings to have
been the Vctlms=set forth the sale OF
oil from the Ralr company's holdings
10 the -ss=o1sing company was ar
ranged and made especially for the
benefit Of the IS per cent Of the Bnir
oompany's stock represented by Clark,
IL being impossible for the holders OF
rs per cent OF the Bair stock to profit
o srch sale because they also Nere
holders OF the stock OF the Kasoming
company and In the transaction were
In the position merely Of taking money
out Of one pocket and putting II into
another. They put Back into their
Reasoning pocket less than they took
out to put In their Rair pocket. how
ever, the answers allege. tho disc-ep-
ancy being the one-fourth share of the
money paid for the BARS oil which
went to h IS per cent Of the Bair
stockholders represented by Clark
The defendants after relating in de-
tail the financing OF the Bair com
pany's campaign for production and
development OF a market for its pc
troleum. including the statement tina,
Clark put only SIS. 900 into tho com
pany originally, later was loaned an
other $4,000 by the cSmpany with
which TO purchase 4 treasury stock
allotment srE on the $50 900 of stock
standing in his namses a result of
these transactions VIZ paid approx
mataly s7o.o 900 in dividends, assert
that at a time when the Bair
was unable to get Its production to an
outside market because OF freezing of
the pipe line from the Lost Soldier
field to the railroad, at which time
Clark was insisting on the payment OF
dividends on the stock he represented.
a contract was made, 20 sell the BARS
production to the Kasoming company.
which a storage facilities in the
field ard therefore was in n position
to take and hold the oil until such
time as the pipe line should DO in OPP
GRAFTON. This contract, it In asserted.
contained the proviso that II the price
received for the oil when Il was sent
out to market was greater than the
price paid tho Bair company for field
delivery, then the Kasoming
should make additional payment to
the Bair company of the difference
between h two prices, but that Il, on
h other hand. the aKsoming COM
pany should be unable to market the
oil ut a price high as hat paid the
Bair company for field delivery, then
the Bair company should return to the
Reasoning company the difference be-
tween the field price and the market
price. Between delivery of the
oil in the field, and payment therefor.
1t Is set forth. came the slump in pc
troieum prices which made 1921 a dis
astrous yea for producers, with the
result hat the Kasoming company
was compelled, when the pipe line
opened and the oil was sent to market,
to sell at a price so much lower than
the price It had paid the BAR conn
pany Int the market price received by
the Kasoming company was approx.
imately $50, coo. Demand was made
by the Kasoming company under the
contract for the return to 1t by the
Pair company OF this difference. 1t is
asserted. but Clarke. it fs alleged, COM
batted the proposal to make restitu-
ton under the contract and refused to
return that portion of the approx
mately $3.50. 600 which had been paid
as dividends on the 25 per cent OF the
Bair stock which he represented.
Therefore the Bair company stock rep
resented by Clark, It is asserted,
profited from the dealings with the
Kasoming OF which Clark and the
Omar company complain in the appli-
cation for a re~ceivership, while the
holders Of the remaining rs per cent
OF the Bair stock were losers, mas
much as they also held Reasoning
stock and, therefore, could not profit
from a transaction between the two
corporations which enabled Bair stock
holders to profit through alleged repu-
diation OF a contract obligation that
resulted in loss to tho Kasoming com
pany.
Tho defendants deny the claim of
the Omar company and Clark hat the
Bair company's holdings are capable
of a daily production q. 10000 barrels
of oil, asserting that - potcntial pro-
does not exceed 1000 barrels
daily.
They assert hat the $4,000 set
forth as having been loaned to Clark
by the BAR company, to enable him
to comply with his obligation to take
an allotment OF treasury stock of the
has not been repaid and
the debt, with accrued interest,
now amounts to approximately
$40. 900: despite which fact the com
has refrained from Withholding
from Clark dividends on his stock
might have been retained and
applied to liquidation of the loan, these
dividends having Appropriated $780,
900.
There is 10 recor on the books of
the Bair company, the defendants set
forth, that the Omar company is a
holder of Bair stock. the 25 per cent
of the Bair stock issued to Clark still
standing in his name in the stock rec
ord.
In this connection, It is said. but not
in the pleadings, that Clark promoted
the Omar company, Of the stock of
which more than $1,000, 900 is said to
have been issued. and tina se and
two of his sons are directors of the
Clark formerly was the