OCR Text |
Show I j ; ARGUMENTS III ! I BIG COPPER CASE t 3 - 1 Utah Officials Ask That Case ; ', Be Stricken From the ' , ; Files. !' : CLAIM GRAHAM WAS j; ,; J NEVER STOCKHOLDER ; j Alleged Also That Wall Is "j Guilty of Contempt in Case. .8 . Ill j Special to Tho Tribune, I NEW YORK. Jan. 21. Argument If ' . vi is being heard today Jn the injunction suit ? brought by Col. E. A. Wnll and Charles I 1 f , W. Graham, asking for an order rostroln- I- . ' ' ins the sha roholdcrs of tho Utah Copper I I' i ' ' and the Boston Consolidated .from voting I f on the proposed Utah' Copper-Boston i, Consolidated merger. L I , In the application to strike vthe case U 1 1 from tho files, tho counsel for the Utah ! Copper company stales that' Graham, who I - f " alone vorlflcd the complaint. Is not and H I never was a holder of Utah Copper stock in his own name, but that lie was cm- ployed by the other complainant, Wall, ' - to brine tho suit and that Wall bought I Utah Copper stock merely for the pur-, pur-, pose of bringing the suit. II ; Somo Counter-Charges. H, Tho petition to striko tho complaint H4 . from the Hies states that Graham never II " owned a ehnro of Utah Copper, in spite II of his oath to the contrary. It slates, P in part, that the complainant. Wall, had l ' asked one Tappan. an officer (assistant I' ' cashier) of tho National City bank, to I J recommend a man who would allow his i name to bo used as complainant In this Mi suit, which was then In contemplation by the said Wall and that Jn response to such request said Tappan recommended ! tho complainant Graham, who was un- B known to his co-complainant Wnll nt the time. Thereupon a meeting was ar- I vnnged by said Tappun between the com- plalnants at tho said bank nt which the I complainants were Introduced to each D other; that an agreement was then U reached whereby iho compralnant "Wall B: should buy 500 shares of stock of the Utah ! Copper company, have the same trans- I . ferrcd to the name of tho complalnnnt. II Graham, who should Immediately execute It an assignment of all his interest therein I and a power of attorney in favor of said I Wall, and live certificates of stock so pur- lv chased together with tho assignment and power of attorney should bo lodged with Ij the said Tappan at said bank subject to r , the direction and control of "Wall and bc- ' yond the control of Graham, i Alleged Contempt. " It was further agreed between the com- ' plalnants that Wall should pay to Gra- 4 ' ham $1000 for the services in allowing , hlmscif to be used as a complainant in : this suit. It was also distinctly agreed '; that Graham should at no time have or , claim any interest whatever In said shares of stock and Uc has not at anytime any-time claimed and does not now claim any , ' Interest therein. It Is alleged that Wall has been guilty of contempt in acquiring ' '' stock for the express purpose of bcgln- ,, nlng and maintaining this suit after he I had full knowledge and notice of Hie ' ; plan which he now seeks to enjoin. Grail, Gra-il, nam, swears that he agreed to the bargain i'u and got the $1000 and that when he go,t l; the stock he signed a power of attorney li and gave It to Mr. Tappan and had no I other interest In the stock than the ?1000 I he was to earn by suing as stockholder. |