OCR Text |
Show TRIAL OF 1ST CACHE SM IT BEGUN Action Accusing Hendrick-son Hendrick-son and StobI of Fraud Starts. Protest by Defense Against Admission of Plaintiffs Provokes Levity. v.. i.-: :j. 7, 1 1 :.-i:.-:i.-rday U.-;o:e JiuiffO V, n. i::,.),!,-! of H.o Third iiHtrir-t court 0;' v.i:i iHOt.l.t ,y t'.-e Vet Cii.-he V'" ..,,-,;. i. y i-l;;uii.hI J. A- HendrU-k-f:,7 ijri.jui, i ;iiy ami Loronzo N. L:tI of Sail I.alu- to rc-juvt-r $J 1,7,000. v ,.-:, th. ronii.IairiL allocs they fraudu-l.:, fraudu-l.:, . v :i5j;:tr;i;U:d from tho cumpwiy'a a-:,., a-:,., and iinutt.ci' ?JtK,0u0 a a damages for i . 1 1 r t : 1 injury io company's busings ',.;;mmih- ami u i fu: I cii'y from their alleged a'.'i loii. 'r.-oi.Utiun of fading bV 1)0th eide3 v.rts followed by the nrtcrlns of a motion 1,.- uiorm-y K. A. W.;d;;wood. cuunsol for ti,. ('fr!iiuintH. lor jurUunjui for ibe dc-'rll,;ii, dc-'rll,;ii, on the plt:adnH. Counsel had i,.i cMinplrLril iu-uin.Mit on bchall uf hiS Motion wh: rourt adjourn. -d lit. 0 o clock M,si,!l(!',v attrrnoon and will rcauine at 10 u.:lorU ibis muniiri. Protected Against Suit, Claim. -),. rn x oi fie .giitontion made o far ,., mH'tIiw II motion fur judgment on the lltradiiiKM - uii.'li im a n...nie8t for decision 1-, mvoi' ol duit.-nda;itM without .sub- n i--ion nf o idom-u -l tbat the corporation corpora-tion v.i hound liv I la charter aijainKt prosc- on , il0 eusi: in.Hlitutcd. The deal vhriv.hv the fH.-in-y of the Knight Sugar cMtuiiaiiv together with a contract with L.ie f,Micii-t'iinnou KnftineeriiiK company fur its removal from Canada lo Cache val-way val-way sold to Hie West Cache Sugar .o'nipaiiy at an alleged and admitted profit to MeiidrtckMoii and Stoid over the cost of tn: liulorv and contract to thorn, Is ,,,U'iv(l hv tho artlclrH of incorporation of t.io WTfii" Cacho Sugar company, counsel tontend.-'. Surli inclusion of the terms of the deal In the articles of Incorporation hinds tho companv, counsel aryues. undor t'iu I'liaru-r and tho statute, from repudiation repudia-tion of ihc t raraciiou. and so from proae-(UiIimi proae-(UiIimi of the pro-sent suit. Counsel explained ex-plained t ha t this must, in his opinion, hold oven In the face of a wrongful Ica-t Ica-t ij o to the transaction nothing of this Maiemrnt to he construed, counsel explained, ex-plained, as an admission whatsoever that ' any wrongful feature existed in the trans action in ouestion. Uuring t he presentation of the pleadings, plead-ings, which hao accumulated on both sines to almost book dimensions, and which occupied the court all of the' forenoon, fore-noon, an informal protest, by way of enlightening en-lightening the court on the matter, it explained, was made by Attorney i Uichanl V. Voim:,', Jr., of counsel for the defendants, auairist a certain admission ! made bv the plaintiff in its reply to tho t nmendod answer of the defendants tu the complaint. Explains for Defendants. Attornev Young, having read the admission admis-sion in question, was interrupted when he undertook to add reus the court with rc-; rc-; gard io what he claimed waa its impro priety, Attorney Frank K Holmun of counsel for I Vie plaintiff protesting that the defendants' motion to strike the admission ad-mission in question had already been overruled over-ruled In (mother division of the court. H wna then that Attorney Young explained ex-plained that his purpose was but to acquaint ac-quaint tho court with the fact that the defendant did not subscribe to tho admission, ad-mission, that it was "designed to put words into their mouths which they had never intended to use.'' Tho context of the admission, together with tho denunciation of It made by At-t At-t ornoy Young occasioned some ' levity In tho courtroom, even the court smiling as counsel explained that its presence In tho pleadings put tho defendants in the position of alleging something that they had no intention to allege. The first paragraph of the amended answer of the plaintiffs to the complaint, to w hi'm the objectionable admission of plaintiff's amended rVply to the amended answer is based, reads: "That they admit ad-mit the defendant in a corporation as alleged al-leged in the first paragraph of said complaint." com-plaint." Allegations as to Contracts. Tho part of the amended reply, di- reeled to the above paragraph of the a mended answer, which called forth the i't'ote.-t f torn Attorney Young and the liibL clash of counsel in the case, follows: "Keplying to paragraph I of the de-fondants' de-fondants' turther answer and affirmative ueiom-e, plaintiff admits thai during the ear 11' 16 the defendant, John A. Hen-! Hen-! d rick sou ami other persons interested In t he form ta ion of plaintiff company, procured pro-cured written contracts with farmers residing re-siding in Cache valley, Cuili, for the raising rais-ing of sugar beets covering ajt acreage in excess of Ouo. that said contracts were in ken in the name of John A. Hendrick-son Hendrick-son as agent for the West Cache Sugar eompany to be incorporated; that at the time said contracts were being entered m to. plaint if f company was not then lu existence, but said llendrickson and as- j social es had in mind the organization of i the plaintiff company as a corporation I under the laws of the'state of Utah to bo I known as the West Cache Sugar company! to become the owner of said contracts and I to erect a plant for the manufacture of i sugar in Cache county, Utah; that said J Hondrickson and associates also entered -into negotiations with divers persons who , were to become stockholders of plaintiff' company; and that certain persons had ; a u reed to become such stockholders and j had given their individual checks aggre-' gating $4 '.WO to the said llendrickson as! part pay mom upon their respective sub-j-vrtpuons for stock in the plaintiff company com-pany and plaintiff admits that the said Cache valley. I tah, where said llendrickson llendrick-son was proposing to establish said factory I vas and is a very productive valley, espe- eiaiiy adapted to the raising of suqar' (cots, and then and there contained a number of such factories in operation." ' In explaining. Attorney Young protested t lhat the defendants eiatm that the monev j collected f"r stock subscriptions was ail! returned to t 'no subscribers because of 1 abandonment of plans to build a factory ! at Miiit!-fieM. that the present "West Cache I Sigar company, with a factory at Cornish. , was the result of a later instituted enterprise. enter-prise. A motion to strike the offending admission was overruled a few weeks ago, after argument had been made by counsel for the defendants, eounsei for the plaintiff plain-tiff submitting the question without argv.- i inert. The array of counsel opposingly ranged j in the case includes the firm of Cheney. , j'M'so.-i t'lolman for the plaintiff, and! i'.ir the defendant, Yo'.mg & Young: TYedg-v.'uod. TYedg-v.'uod. Th ui-riui - Irvine and Thomas i Mai ioueaux. the hit ter being associated ;!h tre defense at beginning of the trial; yesterday morah-g. |