Evening star., 1934-08-09
Three in Shoreham Case
Given Extra Pay De-
spite Protests.
TOTAL REMUNERATION
BROUGHT TO 100000
EOteholders Representative De-
nies Report on Profits During
Three Year Period.

The three receivers for the Shore.
ham Hotel. whose requests for COM
penSation have been termed "extrava-
CANT by representatives OF notehold-
ers, were awarded an additional s40,-
600 In District Supreme Court today.
bringing their total remuneration to
sioO. 900.
This award was made by A. Leftwich
Sinclair, court auditor, whose report
cited numerous court decisions criti-
Ching excessive compensation 10 re-
ceivers.
The receivers for the hotel-John
T. Laskey, Spencer Gordon and Fran
els II. Duehay. who died recently
served for three years and six weeks.
Their last report to the court stated
In part:
"The gross income during the re-
ceivership has been $3.50, ,733. 80.
Operating profit has been $l.093,-
405.72. This operating profit is
without deduction for real estate and
personal property taxes. depreciation,
Interest or receivers fees"
Attacks Report.
Walter B. Guy, representing the
Ehoreham Hotel Noteholders' Com
mittee, attacked this report Of operat-
ing profit in the hearing before the
auditor, contending there was no
showing that the hotel had actually
earned any money during the re-
ceivership. In a statement soon after
the hotel had been taken out Of re-
ceivership and turned over to an op-
Grating company, he said:
THE receivership was discontinued
March 16, 1884. The sum of $50, ,00o
has been paid the receivers. They
have petitioned for a very considerable
amount in addition and pursuant to
an order Of the court have withheld
ei25.00O, out of which such further
amount as the court may allow them
will be paid.
The committee and many Of the
noteholders are of the opinion that
regardless of the value Of their serv-
ices their demands are extravaganza "
Put on Running Basis.
In reporting their activities, the
receivers pointed out the hotel was
on the verge Of collapse when they
took 1t over and that they had
brought II to successful running
basis, doing their own legal work and
completing construction work under
the supervision Of Mr.. Duehay, q
builder.
In awarding the receivers sac, 900
of the sl25,0o0 which had been sci
aside for this purpose, the auditor
cited several opinions in other re-
ceivership cases Some of these read
In part, as follows:
I'm determining compensation, 1t
must be kept In mind that 1888 is not
1929. The wages and salaries OF all
kinds were much lower In 1892 than
in the twenties. The difference must
be reflected in the compensation of
receivers and their counsel as it is in
other fields"
Was Nearly Padlocked.
There is no particular divinity
surrounding a receivership and no
magic in the appellation receiver
that changes ordinary and usual
services into something of exaggerated
value"
The report, incidentally, brought
out the fact that shortly after the re-
ceivers took charge, the hotel narrow
ly escaped being involved in paddock
ing proceedings for alleged violations
of the prohibition law. It was said a
complaint had been made to the dis
trict attorney concerning the sale of
liquor before the receivers took over
operation Of the hotel A contem-
plated padlocking was avoided, it was
said, when the receivers interviewed
the district attorney, promising fun
cooperation In controlling the liquor
situation.
1t was also pointed out that the
lounge cafe, installed after repeal, has
been well patronized and a profitable
addition to the hotels facilities"