The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-29

Preliminary Examination Before Jssttc'

Preliminary Examination Before Justice
Downing.
The preliminary examination tho case Of Theodore
H. Loomis arrested the Instance Of the firm OF Carter
Haw hey, No. 60 Beaver street, the allegation OF
having abs racted from the safe OF the firm number
compound interest notes, valued al s5,3s7. was begun
yesterday morning. before Justice Bowling Of the Tombs
Police Court.
The counsel for the defence stated opening that the
would prove Indebtedness the part Of the
Grm to Mr. LOOMS OF over $4,000 at the time the
bonds taken that Mr.. LOOMS had all the dscre-
tion OF partner in the firm, and that he had committed
criminal act in having taken them from the safc-
even proof could be produced that the bonds were
there deposited which remained 70 be proved ON the
part of the prosecution.
The following abstract OF the evidence thus far
developed
Henry Z. Hawley, Delng sworn rad examined. says.
The name Of the firm OF which was member IN Janu-
AIRY, 1865, Carter Hawlev and place OF business
was nj No. 60 Beaver street In this city; know Theo
our m on the dav Of ganuary 1865 and had BEEN
the employ Of the firm for two years as cashier and
bookkeeper rs such he allowed access to the safe
on January "a 1885, our firm had IN It's possession five
thousand compound interest notes valued at S. 3S tho
face OF the notes being for IS 000 the notes OF his
knowledge; securities in the office were sometimes
kept in the the securities in question were so kept
the prisoner lett their employ about two p NJ January
90 1906 on the morning Of January q the safe was
gone; witness was present; Mr. Loomis had had
any permission TO take bonds from the Office had given
on the day or February WAS quite positive OF the
date; saw Mr. Loomis at Mr.. Carters house. and the
three went to the Office together; spoke to Mr. LOOMS
about the So 900 in compound interest notes. Mr. Lo0ms
said that he had taken them did not remember what
was said further had any intention 10 leave their
employ.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES had known Mr. LOOMS
Tor five years; Mr. LOOMS was bookkeeper with the
firm Of Carter Hawiey; the present firm was formed
and dpd ho 9TH Gvrvo. Mr.
LOOMS had been connected with the business for
several years before witness knew him. had heard OF
when the firm was formed; supposed it was about
ten years since that firm was formed: did not
the death Of Mr.. Whitlock it might have been about
eight years since O. Did you not know OF the firm Of
Kellogg Carter 4 Ha~ley being formed out Of the old
objected to, the ground that witness had personal
knowledge, and sustained by Judge Bowling on that
ground.
Counsel took exception to the ruling
Witness believed that the firm OF kellogg, Carter
Hawiey preceded the firm Of Carter Hawley; sup
posed that the old firm was terminated by the death of
Mr.. Kellogg knew nothing about the affairs of the
firm from personal knowledge before he became part
ner; had been acquainted with the firm Of Carter &
Hawley for three four years previous to January l.
1854: was not one Of the firm.
Counsel here objected TO all questions concerning the
preceding business OF the firm, but was not sustained
by the Justice.
Witness was not ono Of the Hawleys represented in
the old firm; when the firm OF Carter 4 Hawley con-
tinued the services OF Mr. Loomis January l. 1894
the arrangement was that Mr. LOOMS should have q
stipulated salary; II the business on the ter
minaton Of the partnership at the end OF three years
to make per centage Of I'VE per ON such profits
sum over and above the amount Of his stipulated SAL
ay he was to have thedve per cont In any he
to have the salary did remember whether the sal
airy was to be 500 So o00 Mr. Looms had no right
TO draw greater amount than his salary; the agree
mont In writing. Since the three years have ex-
pired has been asceraned that the i've per cent ex
cecdcd the stipulated salary Question objected
and excluded( Question BY Judge Dowling-Have you
any personal knowedge OF tho matter in question A.
could not swear that at the time Of Mr. Loomis lcav-
ing the nve per cent exceeded the salary stipulated
Owing TO the exclusion Of this question the counsel for
the defence remarked that he could not continue the
case until the contract should be produced.
The was then set down for Friday at halfpast
ten subject 70 the engagement Of the counsel for the
defence.