Los Angeles—(AP)—Edward L.
Doheny and directors of the Pan-
American Petroleum and Transport
company today faced a bill of com-
plaint demanding an accounting of
$10,000,000 which stockholders allege
they lost in the fraudulent lease of
the Elk Hills naval oil reserve.

The complaint, filed in behalf of
Frank H. Kunkel, Cincinnati, and
other shareholders, declared the loss
resulted from the cancellation of the
lease by a decision of the United
States supreme court. after the com-
pany had _ spent” several million
dollars in development of the field.

The lease was negotiated for the
government by Albert F. Fall, then
secretary of the interior.

The $190,000 delivered to Fall by
E. L. Doheny, Jr., in the much dis-
cussed “little black satchel,” was de-
clared in the suit to have been given
by the stockholders and used as a
bribe. An accounting of this ex-
change also is asked.

Kunkel sets forth in the complaint
that neither he nor any of the
plaintiff stockholders had any know!l-
edge of the negotiations and de-
scribes Doheny’s conduct of the deal
as a “fraud not only against the
United States but also against the
l'an-American company and its
stockholders.” Doheny is charged
with dominating the affairs of the
‘company when the lease was signed.
 
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 28.—()—
Edward L. Doheny and directors
of the Pan American Petroleum
and Transport Company, today
faced a bill of complaint demand-
ing an accounting of $10,000,000
stockholders allege they lost in
the fraudulent lease of the Elk
Hills Naval Oil reserve,

The complaint, filed in behalf of
Frank H. Kunkel, Cincinnati, and
other shareholders, declares the
loss resulted from the cancella-
tion of the lease by a decision of
the United States supreme court
after the company had spent sev-
eral million dollars in the devel-
opment of the field.

The lease was negotiated for the
government by Albert B. Fall,
then secretary of the interior.

The $100,000 delivered to Fall
by E. L. Doheny, Jr.. in the much
discussed “‘little black satchel’ was
declared in the siut to have been
the rightful property of the stock-
holders and used as a bribe. An
accounting of this exchange also is
asked.
| Kunkel sets forth in the com-
plaint that neither he nor any of
the plaintiff stockholders had any
knowledge of the negotiations and
describes Doheny’s conduct of the
deal as a “fraud not only against
the United States but also against
the Pan American company and its
stockholders.” Doheny is charged
with dominating the affairs of the
company when the lease was sign-
ed.
 