The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-03-01
THE BROKERS' CONSPIRACY
THE REP UThTToN ~ WHOSE RUIN
A CRIME WASTO he BURIED.

Van Snun & Co.'S Charges Against samuel
q. Barr-Dcad Men Tell No TUIes-JudRo
Curtis's Defcncc-Thc Pcriurcd Witnesses
Van ~nuu's Lawyer Attcmpi lug to LcvCar
His Clients Case THROUGH tne Court.
The case Of Van Saun & Co., vs. Samuel c.
Barr, the reports Of which, az printed In THE SuN,
have created stir In financial circles, was called
yesterday in the Supreme Court, General Term, be-
lore Judge Spencer. The Hon. George NJ. Curtis,
attorney for the defendant opened the. argument.
lie began by reading the following letter, addressed
TO Barr by Van saun a Co.:
% BROAD Strict, NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 1860.
DEAN SIM You have failed to keep your appointment
made last evening to be office this morning. We
the matter any longer ami now demand ilc payment of
The money on or before tweve noo). IN case Of fall
sso 20 csagS' sg1s you before yonT 9lre
mont and In the First Company and shall also nave you
arrested on TIE charge Of obtaining money under false
We hnle you Willte. the necessity Ol com
van sXUN co.
Judge Curtis said that the letter showed spirit
Of anmosity seldom displayed by that letter the
plaintiffs, according to the statute proved themselves
guilty
or coMroCNDTsG A FELONY,
II Barr wac guilty Of anything Of the kind It would
look better II Van saun s. Go. would come into
Court with clean hands. Judge Curtis then cited
the afhdavits made by Barr aud corroboratod by
several Others In which Wheeler. orc OF the firm,
IL accused Of asking Barr to take check for $500,
signed by the firm, TO the Atlantic National Bank Of
New York, get 1t certified by the Cashier and then
add a cipher to $500 and q y to the eight thus
making the check $4,000. In those anldayits
Wheeler is accused Of telling Barr to deposit the
$4,000 in the Tenth National Bank, draw 1t again,
DIVIDE WITH VAN sAUS CO.,
and everything would be settled Wheeler pro.
missed Barr TO let the banks Grht It out among them.
selves. This Barr stouly refused to do. JUDGE
Curtis ccntendcd that n the afldavi;s made to tie
foregoing facts true, and there was no reason
to DOUBT 1t, then al least member Of the fr was
not to be believed under oath. Julgc Curtis added
tina; the only nndayits against Barr were those Of
the plaintias' partners. persons having a community
Of Interests, with tle execution OF two aniiavils,
one reilting 10 the imprisonment OF a Mr. bows.
and the otAcr the AFFIDAVIT OF Robinson tie attorney
of Van Saun Co. Judge Curtis sud he did not
consider It in very good taste for an attorney to
SWEAR MS CASE THROUGH.
In Ms afhdayit. Robinson sNcars that he had an
interview with Barr Ia his onice, aud that Bar
toid Linn Ro5iuson) that the charges were all cor
rect Barr denss It. Judge Curtis said that no one
hut an idiot would admit to tie counsel opposed to
Linn any such thing. II guilty. The whole
amount Of the matter wa- that Van Saun & Co. were
in extremis," and Robinson knowing it made
case before this Court. The &i.5lJ nust have been
drawn from tue bank and somet ody must have re-
eeiyed H. Ths case had been before the Grand Jury,
and II harr had Ieon considctoi guilty he would
certainly have been indicted. TIE GRIND Jury. how
ever brought IN an indictment iinsi John Kendall.
The only reason why Van Snln n Go. prosecuel
Barr, was because Kendall hld Ned the Stae. and
they could not reach AiIn. Judge Curtis said that lie
know himself that
GOVERSCR HOFFMAN MAD REFU Used 10 GRANT RE-
QUESTIONS
q - "a f-V ~
time, anl tie Itstou against whom 10 was issued
vas brought GA anu acquitted. Ju.Ie Curtis sad
Le kEcw tnat tle opposite ,llc would taAe as their
PRINCIPAL point Bars departure IRON tic city. But
we toGlt Gust he'f IN mind tai 81 W., su0stan
ho tNeadal hal lost IT, kcnaal roUy,cr, told Bar
lat he would give lin q mors-lc of Sl,J0 on
me properly Ice (h n4-O had la rHiiadel lh.l /,
vas ON tlis account ia, GIIr let WItL AeAial for
New Jersey.
Judge Curtis road the following letter. and said
tisi II showed clearly that Burr was trying to
SECURE VAN sAuS a co. FROM Loss
rIri.DRIruA. sept. y. CO.
hss'r' Tda SaUa q Co, % Byoai street.
uESrs made a mistake bat Y was not my fault
sci 6Siefe eavt here ;1fe 50 OSs Of yGu 10 a
Yours. sAML. C. BARR.
Another proof Of Barr's and Dows's anxiety 20 re-
turn The amount 10 Van Saun 4 Co., Was the re yard
of 49, Which they offered ior kendats srrest, In
either tue United states OF the oanadas. Judge
"
sci had endraNorsd to spring series OF afndavit-
against Joseph bows tOhc ct the Witnesses Tor
Barn In witch they try 10 prove that bows was IN
dlctcd, convicted, and
IMPRISONED IN rESi1Esrr,Rr
IN rennsylyauia. In rebutal OF the ani iavit Judge
tufus ptodueeI We amda'it OF Dow, himself, deni-
i've respectable citizens OF New York namely F.:
Mcssrs George Mar,a4n, II. Tel, n j. WiglIman,
swear positively that they haye Known BOWS AL his
hio time, aud thai he cannot possibly DC tho man.
Judge Curtis said he could twelve additional al.
ndayits II necessary. Again "a creature ul Van sluu
4 Go. named feel, had como TO this same DoNs
when they are irving To malaga him, aud had offered
MN Sl,OoO u ne lDows) would only swear that his
aftdayits thus tar in the We're untrue judge
Curtis said Le would 20 farther aud coucede to The
opposite side their armament that Dows was not
qualified 10 testify and even chen Barr lad sufficient
evidence to prove that Ia al tIe material points
VAN sAUs ASD WHEELER HSD TESTIFIED FALSELY,
and therefore committed the crime OF perjury. Tho
theory Of the plaLiits was that they Toid $3.50 TO
secure 5000 In Government bunIs. Judge Curtis
c1ltended that this could not be accomplished. un-
less the bonds stolen or detained IA some lille
climate way, and thai Van SUN {; Co. having
knowingly purposcd TO receive them, rendered
Themselves guilty OF q criminal offence, and cousc-
qaently they could not appear Ia this court in
Iured men. Because Kendall was absent, they
sought to hold Barr. IL Was very likely that Ken.
dl being Government detective, had possession OF
such securities, II loOAed as though the case The
plaintiffs was getting very weak, when al the last
Mr.. stoughton. As regards the testimony OF Van
Saun. where ne swelrs that lie has never seen Dows
II II COhuaNtAcl ny lhc avis OF llltt or Tour
Witnesses. and consequently should not be taken.
TIE Court must bear In mind that Van sauu ~ Co.
were
swrARISG FOR THEIR BUSINESS STATUS
their reputation, and money. II they lose this case
tey arc TuiAed Van Saun ~ Co. had peTsccutcl
BAR so tar - 10 bring charges against him in tac
Lodge, OF which ne j. a member In good sLJnCing,
AMI IN lie regiment, but had been rebuked On All
sides.
Nr. s,oush;on, counsel for the plaintiffs, reviewed
the andHNits o. Van Saun CO., Uccusit Barr
alone Of the fraud, remarkns tIat they have never
seen DOWs, sc. lie laid particular stress upon one
part OF The letter which Barr sent from Philadelphia,
askin. Van Saun co.
10 SUSPEND JUDGEMENT AWHILE"
Mr. Stoughton wished to know why Bar should
ask anything IKE TINS n he were lot guilty.
Mr.. Robinson, the Ctler counsel for Van Saun &
Co., said that Barr had given lin q note 'or $500
wealthy farmer Of ALE shany county, Pa. lie
U,ohiuson) had sent it on, aAd It was returned
marked worthless.
Judge Curtis said tia, all he had desired was for
Rob-. son 10 produce that note In evidence. Ii he
hld not done 80 very soon, lie tJud-e Curls) would
have brought it forward Jude curtis urIlisnal
Robinson before the Court, he bar, and the press,
~ guilty of an attempt a. cJmpuuut iuE n fe.ony.
Judge Spencer said lie would read tic Ini llyits
both sides, AID reLdor ade' ision IN fen days.