| OCR Text |
Show ! SMTOH KING GfVES I testmrii on SUGAR STOCK SALT LAKE, April 12 The testi- moii o! i nited States Senatoi Wil , V liam li iinu. as a witness lor the V defendant was taken before Judge I p W. H. Biamel of the Third district1 B I court yesterda; in the suit of the H West ( 'ach u?ar onipan: against J, W , 1--:itin l;-on ami Lorenzo V Stohl B Senator Kinc testtied ihat he re-i B i'i I si (too in bonus stock in consld-l K I oration of his subscription for $2r,"00 B jf worth of stork. Explaining (hat hp, I was unable to fix the date, but that! I it was not thai of January 11. 1917,' I the witness said that he was present' I at a stockholders' meeting v.-ben the j K t roniract with the Lynch -Cannon En- r gint ering company for removal of the I V I Knight factory from Canada io Cache! K I alley was turned over by Mr. Hen- j R drickson. He said he noticed that the W Trnr- rarrinc the consideration had m '" ' 11 ' 1:1 :md thai .Mr. Hendrii ' - son did nr. i give Mi'- figures though I he and several others asked about P them. Mr. King testified that he inquired I of Mr. Ifendrickson and Mr. Slohl as I to their profits in turning over the f Knight, plant in the company, bur was I never told. Before signing the articles nf incorporation, according to his testimony, tes-timony, he made inquiries of others including Thomas R. Cutler and .1 William Knight, to hrlp him in con eluding as to the desirableness of the Mnturo. He said that he first bc-L bc-L camr interested In the undertaking 39 some time in November or December I i of 1016, having conversation about it f with Mr Hendrickson upon an occas-; occas-; ion of meeting him and Mr. Stohl in K a drug store at the refreshment coun tJri ,ri- Qualifies Testimony I Under cross-examination, Mr. King I testified that he knw Mr. Hendrkk-I Hendrkk-I p son collected stock subscription mon -I ! ey to pay on the contracts for pur-i pur-i I chase and removal of the Knight fac- tory. Later he qualified this testi- s inonv I "You didn't know.-' asked Attorney f .lohn Jensen of rounsel for the plain -'iff. "whether Mr. Hendrickson had i J collected money from farmers up there r ' and was making payments on this I contract with that money or not, that I f is, on the contract with the Knights I I and I he contract with the Lynch -Can-1 A, non Engineering company1" A. Brother Jensen, at some period before the meeting when we organiz i ed Q. Yes? A. -I knew that he had collect - ; ed money from subscribers to pay on , ihe coniraits because he urged me to pay as much as I could of the $25,000 as they had some heavy drafts 1o meet ' Q. Then ou did know that he wn s collecting money from the fanners I or from subscribers, and using thai; t money to pay upon these contracts? t Objection was made to this. Welt, did Mr. Hendrickson tell A. Mr. Hendrickson told me I1 don't know that I can answer that ves I B A. Mr. Hendrickson told me, when 1 told him I would subscribe for $25.-"00 $25.-"00 worth, f told him I had that amount ; in the bank, or nearly that amount,, hut I needed part of it for other iu- I vestments, and I only eared lo give him a check for $12,500 Then he said, "We have some rather heavy payments to meet " I recall some-I some-I thing about freight and other mat j jers. I don't just recall and he said' lie wanted the money for that purpose. Senator King testified that, although! Mr. Hendrickson had refused to divulge di-vulge the consideration of the Lynch -Cannon contract for the profits for himself and Mr. Stohl in turning over to the company the Knight plant he, assured his questioners the company was getting a good bargain at $529,000, I The record of the case shows that the two contracts were for a total oJ I860,-! I860,-! 000. Just before his cross-examination was concluded and he was excusef! I I from the witness stand without re- I direct examination. Senator King was j asked to identify a carbon copy of a j letter written to him by Mr. Hendrlck- I ' on under date of March 16, 1917. I Asked If he had received the letter, t he answered. "I am not sure. Mv best recollection is thai l did." "Your best recollection U thai you Kg did?" asked counsel for the plaintiff Wrf It had escaped my memory," said I the senator A conference between opposing f "'unei followed the reading of the! letter in silence by the lawyers for the defendants By stipulation, a par-graph par-graph from the letter was read into h record It was as follows "Speaking or thi preventing the selling of stor k ir the People's Sugar company, with all iheir one-sided ar rangements in favor of the promoters, could sell their stock, then certainly OUl proposition which Is fair to the ; stockholders, fair to ihe heet raisers, -hould sell without any difficulty. Eut here of course, is the difference they . paid to -fcell their stock and we don't want tp pay to sell ours, and as n' result, they oversold their entire is- sue. " ; The stipulation agreed to by opposing op-posing counsel included thai the word "this," occurring third In the paragraph para-graph be taken to refer to a profit-sharing profit-sharing clause Included in the beet contracts with farmers. R. A Moves Of Ogden. one of 'the' Incorporators, testified he thought ihe enterprise for a factory in West Cache valley had bnc n given up after he attended at-tended a meeting of promoters in Ue-den Ue-den in September 1916. but that later Mr. Hendricl son sured him be had not abandoned the enterprise. He admitted getting $1000 in bonuB Btock, although he paid for only $10,000 worth, explaining that he was allowed ' the bonus because of having gollen the rest of $25,000 in subscriptions from ; others. no |
