Two Directors Claim Suit Against Argus Is 'Baseless'

Two Directors Claim Suit
Against Argus Is 'Baseless'

A point-by-point denial of a motion to dismiss the bill of
charges made against, Argus,Inc., complaint. There has been no ac-
and its directors in the $T^TSn;3S? lion on the motion.
damage suit has been filed by two No answer has yet been filed by
of the firm's board members with Preston R. Bassett, Leiand S.|
the Wayne county circuit court. Bisbee, William E. Brown, jrJ

The answer — made by board D. Howse, the other directors at!
members H. L. Frisinger, an Ann William P. Harris, jr., and Robert;

Arbor contractor, and A. L. Ashby. the time of the suit's initiation:

president of Olivet College—asks Aug. 8. !
dismissal of Louis> M. Eston's G. Stanley Porter, former board
"baseless charges." chairman, died in a Sept. 11 fire

Eston, a Detroit investment at his Clark Lake summer home.
counselor and owner of 100 shares Six Charges Denied
of Argus stock, alleges in his suit The eight-page answer contains
that the "negligent actions" of a categorical denial of the follow-
(he local camera firm's directors ing Eston charges:

had resulted in the dissipation of (1) That "a general system"
the corporation's funds, had been established by which the
First Answer By Directors directors were benefiting financial-

The Frisinger-Ashby answer is iy from their connection with the
the first to be filed by any of the firm;

eight company directors named, (2) That the directors had "sub-
although Argus, Inc., has entered I jecf.ed themselves to the will and
——- — • --————- -———••domination" of Howse, forrnei"
; company president wW resiener'
; last.. June, and Jay H. L««w>on. fo'
"iDfi' vice-president who ivas kih-
. in a plane crash in Decemb''.
^948.

(3) That the alleged $100,000
loss in the sale of cameras to a
Hoboken, N. J., firm was the re-
sult of any failure of the defend-
iants;

Other Charges

(4) That the alleged $956,.^'
loss in the purchase and subs
quent sale of two Minnesota plai;

was caused by negligence;

(5) That the ".ownership ana
; operation of an airplane consti-'
ituted a negligent and reckless dis-
i sipation of the corporation's
[money"; and

: (6) That th. : "d TVz-cent-
per share di declared in
'1947-48 was unwarranted. The
! answer adds that the dividends
i "were far less than the corporation
! could have safely paid without
!; detriment to the stockholders."
'' Possible Influence Cited
' Beyond denying Eston's allega-
I lions, Frisinger and Ashby, assert
: that the Detroiter's charges "may
1 be disseminated to the stockhold-
i ers ... to influence the manage-
ment of the corporation . . . fo'-
(his) own purposes."

The answer was filed by Co>'
ilin. Conlin Sr Parker, Ann Arbor
ilaw firm representing Frisinger
-tand Ashby, as well as Bassett. .J