OCR Text |
Show SOME TESTIMONY IS GIVEN IN SUGAR CASE , i At Wednesday's session of the hearing John A. Hendrlckson was again subjected to cross examination by Herbert R. MacMlllan, counsel for1 the Amalgamated company. He again related much of the history of the West Cache Sugar company and was questioned on matters connected with the case of tho West Cache company com-pany against Mr. Hendrlckson, and Lorenzo N. Stohl In which n Judg- ( ment for $150,000 was rendered for the plaintiffs. Mr. Beer put the following question ques-tion to Mr. Hendrlckson; "Whnt did tho Judgment of $150,000 represen', the net profits or tho gross piofllo referted to on page 2191 of the records rec-ords Will ou explain that for tho lecord?" i , Tho witness answered: "Now, In answer to your question iclatlve to tho $150,850 being net pi of It or gross profits, my answer Is this: When the Judge had heard oia-caBC oia-caBC he notified us that he would tnko the following week, tho eutho following weok, to look Into the ensj before he. would render his decision-In decision-In the mlddjo of tho following weok ho decided the case and so notified tho attorneys and his decision was that we were 'agents,' 'fiduciaries.' When tho Judgo had decided we were agents, our attorneys made a list of expenses, outlays for labor, for commissions com-missions and discounts that we paid out of our personal pockets during tho two years of tho promotion and construction and a bill of about half the regulation commission for such work as wo did. Theso expenses totaled to-taled tens of thousands of dollars. The entire amount totaled over $155,000. Our attorneys presented those Items to tho Judgo and asked that they might be permitted to give evidence to show that these cxpendl-uros cxpendl-uros were correct and the commission commis-sion asked for was extremely reasonable. reason-able. Tho Judgo deccllned to listen to any of our requests, stating that If that was done ho would be allowing allow-ing two trials In one. Henco wo were not nllowed a single dollar for all our outlay during those two yearq or anything elso for our services. Ah i result this $150,850 Is tho gross profits, the difference between the buying and tho selling, and not tho net profits, and I feel, therefore, that It Is unfair and that tho decision was absolutely unjust, nnd will ho go down Into t(ie record of time." Mr. Macmillan asked tho witness! why he had "attacked some of the' best citizens of the state." Mr. Hendrlckson Hen-drlckson replied that ho had not attacked at-tacked anyone except Mr. " Woolley J and L. R. Eccles. Ho added that If' Mr. Macmillan referred "to Mr.Wooh i ley' as ono of tho best citizens of ' Utah, then God pity tho rest of us." I J In reply to questions put by Mr. 'Macmillan, Mr. Hendrlckson disclaimed dis-claimed all responsibility for brine-Inf. brine-Inf. the complaint on which the present pres-ent hearing Is founded. Mr. Stohl, associate of Mr. Hendrlckson, Hen-drlckson, In tho West Cache Sugar company, was also cross examined by Mr. Macmillan.' Mr. Stohl testl- 9 fled (hat Mr. Woolley had been the I first to suggest arbitration of the I differences between himself and Mr. I Hendrlckson, nnd Mr. Stohl. Mr. m Stohl testified that ho" went to sea I former Governor William Spry In an I effort to have him compose tho dlf- I ferchces betweon Mr. Woolley and I Mr. Hendrlckson. H Mr. Macmillan asked the witness II If ho had told Gov. Spry, that "Hen- N drlckson Bald that ho would take tho U matter up with the federal trade I commission and would Involve the church and the brethren In an tnves- J tlgntlon." This Mr. Stohl emphat- A Ically denied. |