Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-10-23
CHARGES AGAINST.
| GLENW0OD COMPANY
In Application Here for Receiver
for Philadelphia Dis
tillery.

Charges that the Glenwood Indus
trial Disttlling Company OF Philadel-
phia, Delaware corporation, whose
plant was seized several months ago
by Federal prohibition agents for the
illegal manufacture OF grain alcohol,
and later released. Is continuing In
operation in violation Of the law. are
made in bill. argued this morning
before Judge Norris in the United
States District Court. The complain
ants seek to have the corporation dis
solved and receiver appointed.
Wray c. Arnold. a heavy stock
holder in the company. is seeking the
appointment. OF q receiver on the
grounds that the directors can con-
tinue the lawful manufacture OF de-
natpced alcohol only at a loss and In
jeopardy of the investment Of stock
holders.
He alleges that from information re-
ceived by him recently he Is convinc-
ed that the directors of the company
are conspirlng with outsiders to man
ufacture grain alcohol or cologne
spirits in defiance OF the law and also
denatured alcohol which they are not
selling, but placing In storage. where
il will be available for sale whom re-
distilled in the event the plant is
seized and the permit revoked by the
prohibition authorities.
When the distllling company was
seized by both the prohibition and the
internal revenue departments, the
names of Lew Tender, we'll known
boxer and his manager. Philip Glass
man, were brought into the case as
co-conspirators with the directors OF
| the company. The case caused a SEN
sation in Philadelphia, but was set
| tied after a secret hearing behind
closed doors in the Continental Hotel
which resulted in a refusal by the
government to revoke the company's
permit to manufacture denatured al
| cohal.
Prior to the seizure OF the plant pro
hibltion agents confiscated n 1ars'
number of barrels ef alcohol whil'
Il was being smuggled out of the plan
at night
| Arnold said that he has $4,000 In
vested in the company. IL reoeiv
| er Is not appointed he cites that tn
interests of himself and other stock
holders for whom he Is also actin,
will be in danger because of the con
tinuance of the company in its viola
lions of the law. which would soone
or later result in another seizure o
the plant and It's assets.
| In his petition he names a MAJ
named Aiken of Dauphin street nea
Twentieth, Philadelphia, as the al
legged receiver OF the grain alcohol, VIII
in turn delivered 1t TO purchasers
He also alleges that the denature
alcohol was shipped 10 a man name
McGarvey at Fifth and fruntingdo
streets, and that II was later re-die
titled.
The illegal business Of the compan,
It is alleged was carried on at prof
of from $500 to $4,000 day by di
rectors and ohers. no part Of whic
went into the treasury as profit 70
the stockholders, according TO the a.
legation In the will.
The corporation il simply bein
used as blind and shield TO protec
and conceal group OF men engage
in this unlawful traffic the petitio
charges.
|, An injunction TO prevent officers o
the company from meddllng with Il
books. papers and assets to hinder tn
work OF the receivers which might b
appointed is also asked.
In reply 10 the petition counsel &c
|, the company answers by stating tha
, the bill is vague, indefinite and in
, sufficient upon its face to support tn
plaintiffs allegations 10 entitle h!r
TO relief prayed for"
At the conclusion Of arguments c
, both sides the case was taken unde
advisement by the court.