OCR Text |
Show Senator King Will Testify in West Cache Sugar Case Subpoena Will Be Served by Defendants; Haddock Had-dock Admits Signing Dictated Letter on. Demand That He "Come Through Clean.' UXrTKD STATES SENATOR WILLIAM WIL-LIAM R. KING, due to arrive in Salt Lake from Washington today, will be subpoened as a witness for the defendants in the suit of the West Cache Sugar company to recover from J. A. Hendrlckaon and Lorenzo N. Srohl certain alleged undeclared profits of promotion. Announcement to this ef-l ef-l feet was made .in court yesterday by counsel for the defendants. Mrs. Mary L. Hendrickson, wife of Mr. Hendrickson, the defendant; Joseph Scowcroft, vice president, and Fred G. Taylor, secretary treasurer, of the Amalgamated Amal-gamated Sugar company; Leonard Scott and L. H. Hadley, formerly auditors for the West Cache Sugar company, and Miss Carrie Thomas of Logan were the new witnesses called and examined for the defendants in yesterday's progress of trial of the case before Judge V. H. Bramel of -the Third district court. Lon J. Haddock, recalled to complete his testimony, was the first witness on the stand, tie admitted his signature on a letter of June 6. 1318, with which he , was faced on cross-examination, but de-1 de-1 nted that the substance of the letter was : true. Says Letter Was Dictated. J He protested that "Ernest R. Woolley, president of the West Cache Sugar company, com-pany, had dictated the letter and induced him to sign it. demanding of him that he "come through clean." He said that Mr. Woolley told him at the time of his intention in-tention to sue the . defendants and that he might have a case against the directors. di-rectors. The text of the letter, addressed to Mr. Woolley as president of the plaintiff company, follows: "For your information frill state that I was selected as secretary of your company com-pany at a meeting at which I was not present. I did not make application for such secretaryship, but1 performed it as an accommodation to the directors of the corporation. "I had no knowledge of the reasons for turning over, nor have I had any knowl edge as to the values of anything that was turned over to the West Cache Sugar Su-gar company by Messrs. Hendrickson and Stohl. Neither has there come into my possession at any time any information informa-tion or facts pertaining to the original transfer to the West Cache company of the Hendrickson and Stohl contracts or other contracts, nor the representations as to what should have been transferred, and at all times such duties as I have performed as secretary, have been solely as an accommodation and under the direction di-rection of the boar.d of directors and J. A. Hendrickson and L. X. Stohl. I per-! per-! formed my duties without questioning j their authority or prerogative and solely j for the purpose of an accommodation to j these gentlemen. I "At no time have I been a salaried of-i of-i ficial. However, in the starting of the I corporation I received an option upon i certain stock for which I received a small I commission for selling. I "I have never in any way assumed to Itnow or assumed to pass judgment, or to inquire into, or in any way lnvesti-1 lnvesti-1 gate the reasons as to why certain things were done or the motives behind them, but my acts at all times have been solely as an accommodation to Messrs. Hendrickson and Stohl and to the West Cache Sugar company. My reasons for having performed this duty without specific spe-cific inquiry into the reasons for certain acts is because of the utmost confidence i that I had in the above-mentioned Dir ties, and my belief that there would be nothing asked of me that would not bo in accordance with the facts and in accordance ac-cordance with the law and in the best interests in-terests of the stockholders." ( Another Letter Introduced. Among other things, Mr. Haddock said that, the letter was untrue wherein it Btated that he was not on salary. He testified that he was paid a salary. He further testified that, at the time of the taking over of the company's control by the Knight Investment company, he held an option upon 200 shares of the company's com-pany's stock, for purposes of-selling it, and was promised $500 by J. William Knight in consideration of giving up the option that the Knight company might acquire the stock.. Another letter, introduced by counsel for the plaintiff during cross-examination of Mr. Haddock was written, to the witness wit-ness by Mr. Hendrickson. In part the letter read; "By the way, Lon, I am wondering if my friend, Mr. Stohl.' is giving you th$ help he should in (lining up some of the larger prospects in your city. Ho ought to do what he can, because money- has got to come in faster than it has been coming. - We must have through you two or three $25,000 men. With his help I, believe that such can be obtained." Mrs. Hendrickson Testifies. The witness denied having aid he had not read the articles of incorporation before be-fore signing- them, explaining he, may have said,, at a time when his memory did not serve him, that he signed without reading, but that he had later informed the attorneys for the plaintiff he remembered remem-bered reading the articles and would not testify otherwise. He admitted making comments that he thought it unfair, of t'ne -attorneys for plaintiff to examine him with regard to the matter after what he had said concerning it. Mrs. Hendrickson testified but briefly. not beins subjected to cros?-e:aminst:Gn. Her testimony, designed for rebuttal o: t:-.at of Henry Baer to the effect that he had seen but the signature sheet of tho articles of Incorporation at the time of signing and never had opportunity to read them, was to the effect that she drove with her husband to the Baer home on the day of Mr. Bier's signing and that site had the articles of incorporation in her keeping during the trip, she said they were rolled up and there were several sheets of paper; that her husband had handed them to her when she pave up the driver's seat of the automobile to him after calling for him with the car at his office. -Miss Thomas testified substantially the same, saying -she had Joined the Hen-drlcksons Hen-drlcksons for ' the ride to the Haer residence, resi-dence, three miles out of Logan, Mrs. Hendrickson'.' little daughter and her niece being the other occupants of the car. Both witnesses agreed they were about half an hour at the Baer place, Mr. Hendrickson Hen-drickson going to the barn to find Mr. Baer, who previously testified that he signed in the cowyard, laying the alleged single signature sheet submitted to him over his knee and using a pen furnished by Hendrickson. Miss Thomas volunteered volun-teered that the time of waiting for Mr. Hcndrtekaon might have seemed long to her because of the fact that she had a date to go to a movie show that evening. Cognizant of Offer. , Mr. Scowcroft and Mr. Taylor testified tney were cognizant, as officials of the Amalgamated Sugar company, of an offer made by . R. Ecclcs to the defendant of ?i5,O00. for the Knight sugar factory contract, con-tract, but they were of the opinion that Mr. Eccles had acted on his own initiative and that the directorate of tho company had negatived the. idea upon formal consideration. con-sideration. Thife proved in accord with minutes of the board's proceedings, which were read into the court proceedings. Mr. Scowcroft admitted the Amalgamated company had felt ft had a prior right in Cache vailey because of development of the sugar beet industry, there and that the promotion of an independent factory had hastened the building of the Amalgamated company s factory at Smlthfield. Neither Mr. Scowcroft nor Mr. Taylor was cross-examined. cross-examined. Mr. Scott and Mr. Hadley testified they made the audit presented for approval ap-proval at the stockholders' meeting of June 1, 1918, held at Logan. Both testified tes-tified Mr. Hendrickson produced the Knight sugar plant contract at the meeting meet-ing to prove an error of J35.000 in the report and that, in answer to Mr. Wool-ley's Wool-ley's question, he admitted that the contract con-tract was the property of the West Cache Sugar company and turned it over to the secretary at Mr. Woolley's request. re-quest. 1 Examination Brief. Both denied having heard what witnesses wit-nesses for 'the plaintiff- testified ' they heard, that Mr. Hendrickson had admitted, admit-ted, on being questioned, that the contract con-tract was negotiated for and on behalf of the West Cache Sugar company and that it always - had been the property of the West Cache Sugar company.. Mr. Scott was briefly cross-eiamlned. Mr. Hadley was given more attention by counsel for the plaintiff, which resulted result-ed in a whirlwind finish for the day's session. Attorney John Jensen, of counsel for the plaintiff, reminded the witness, with his acquiescence, that , Scott and Hadley were yet acting as auditors for the rklntlrf t .. ., year, at a time when 'pretrial arguments on the pleadings in the present case were in progress. Counsel asked the witness wit-ness if he did not remember having been asked once, after a day in court, if he, Hadley, was repeating to the other Bide matters discussed between them as counsel and auditor for the plaintiff company com-pany and. if he was not at that time in the employ of the Beneficial Life Insurance In-surance company, a concern with which Mr. Stohl was identified. Mr. Hadley denied de-nied the attorney had ever auked him either question, repeating- the denials when the questions were refraaied several sev-eral ways. He admitted on the witness stand, however, he and his partner had done some work for the Beneficial Life Insurance company, during the month of January. VNow do you mean to say, Mr. Hadley," Had-ley," asked Attorney Jensen, "that at a meeting hi the presence of Mr. Woolley and in the presence of Dr. Rich I didn't say to you, 'Now, Hadley, I want to know whether you are giving information to the people on the other side, information informa-tion that I have given you; I get it from them in court, and I want you to be square?' " "I think Mr. Woolley asked me that," answered . the -witness. ; "Didn't I ask you that question?" "I don't remember of you asking it'." "And didn't I ask you whether you had done it or not?" . "I don't remember of you asking it at all.". . . . ' . "Tou 'don't remember of my aBklng it at all. Do you remember that the question ques-tion was put to you as to whether you were giving -information to the other side that we were discussing with you?" "Yes." "Yes, . that question was put. And from that day to this we have had nothing noth-ing to do with . Scott & Hadley except as they have come to our office. Isn't that right?" "Yes." "That's all." ' - |