Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 67, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 December 1909 — SAY DIRECTOR AIDED RIVALS [ARTICLE]

SAY DIRECTOR AIDED RIVALS

Telephone Company Seeks tc Close Books to Official PRIVATE VENTURES ALLEGE! Herman C. Stifel Brings Action t« Force Scrutiny of Records of Indlarv apolis Company Opposed by Countei Move of Stockholders Who Aver Hi Used Business Secrets to Detriment of Firm of Which He Is Member. Indianapolis, Dec. 3. —Charging that Herman C. Stifel of St. Louis, s director in the New Long Distance Telephone company, is seeking to pro mote the interests of rival companies with which he is connected by a suit ii court detrimental to the welfare of till New Long Distance company, the lat ter company, through Its attorneys has filed a return to the alternativi writ of mandate petitioned for by Sli fel in order that he might have access to the company’s books and records. “During the year 1909,” say the at torneys for the defendant company “the said relator (Stifel) has devoted the greater part of his time in organiz ing and financing corporations which will compete with and take over a large part of the business of this cor poration. Charge Secrets Are Given Rivals. "He is seeking to obtain access tc the books and records of this corporation and have copies made thereof, anc its correspondence, for the sole pur pose of furnishing full information as to the details of this corporation’s husi ness to persons who are hostile to thi Interests of this company.” The New Long Distance company alleges that Stifel and his associates have heretofore had a contract with the defendant company for "certain non-competitive telephone and tele graph service on wires of this com pany,” and it is averred this contract has long since been forfeited on ac count of a breach of the contract by Stifel. Say Director Uses Coercion. The present suit was brought, It !« alleged, in order to coerce the New Long Distance company to renew this contract, which, the company alleges would result In Us financial loss. It is alleged that Stifel has "Ignored and neglected the business of the cor poration and has failed and refused ti perform any of his duties as director throughout the year.” According to the defendant company its books have already been sufficient ly audited at the instance of the board of directors, and all the legitimate In formation which Stifel might wish car be obtained from the results of this audit. Stifel brought suit to mandate th# company to allaw his own agent make an audit of its books.