New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-12

to the amount of 225o0i -
Witness-You may say So
Is itso f-Yes.
On that account Yes
Aud no other account mo other account 49,. =,
Pray where is this check for 500 aecounto1 Ior
you Will hand me the book VIII zen you ae r Wiz
company. (rhe book was handed TO biml. Inc south
And is entered as expenditure debited sgaloss
deduction from the profit made out Of the South Aurora
Is t entered az an expenditure against that company
No, not against the company but In the expenditure
account the ACCOUNT OF expenses Incidental to the opera
What the Rioo 18th of June entered against g.
What Is the s3so on the2th of July. and the sea ios
What is the aioa, entered aaainsti-I submit THAI
am not Obliged 70 mention the particulars oil the various
amounts.
far enough think 10 beyond the legitimate bounds
70 20 further You have got generally that sums
In consideration Of sustained. You may com
ment on that statement 70 whether 1t creditaoe'
but think you cannot 20 further INTO all the accounts
The Solicitor ieneral-I AJAX you whether there were
in The Times newspaper paragraphs IN the money article
In reference 10 all these cOmpanlest
Mr. Gfard-I object to tnat
The Lord Cher Baron-Ylu can give In evidence any
article which appeared IN TIE Times.
Questions about payments IN 1879 succeeded:
The solicitor II It is objected TO shall
not ask any further question about tnat but VIII
ask you did you pay Mr.. Sampson any check IN 1877
Wtness-I have not got the date from Wncb oOulu
tell you
really think you could tell me gsneralyi-I cannot
Is it fact that 1917 you paid him checks to
large amount IL cannot say
And you did, were they all free gftsf-TDat cannot
Have you an acoounti-The only account is whore
have purchased vestDents for MIN. and resod them
Did you make hun auy ft IN lS72l-I cannot say that
did.
as FL COO IN l8Isf-I should not like to say so.
Two th0usand1-YOu may ask any sum.
Did you pay him $1,000 without any considerationi-I
should say not, AS far my memory goes.
Not urther than ati-l cannot say.
whether gave him rs 900 IA 1s72f-I cannot really.
VIII you swear you have not gwen hm 2l0OCO-l can
not swear. have no memory.
Then, having sworn he could not remember
whether he had or had not given Mr.. Sampson
E5,OOO or even 10000 in 1872 Baron Grant was
further Intercepted az to why he gave it
II you did give him R5OO0 II for I'll
reply to any hypotheteal, case. ,o,,. ,o.,-1
have doubt did.
What fori Was 1t free tho doubt 1t pront
made either application for stock or allotment ia
the way frequently done by bankers and nnanciers.
What do you mean-that the leading capitalists OF
this city make gifts to Mr. Sampson I'll nothing out
that persons IN the position OF Mr.. Sampson entitled
to aOtments OF stock which would yield him pront'
which Is done by such persons as ROthsebiids.
The Lord Chief Baron-Persons Ia the position OF MI
Sanpsonf
tain sums and whether they were free gifts, and said
II paid 1t IN reference ~ profits on aOt
simpson would be- entitled to receive a. matter Of
right Every Influential person has right to receive
premium, ana 80 make profit out OF 10.
Take COMPANY A, which you are bringing ont Mr..
Sampson, IN the position he held. would get an aot
Did he apply, i-someIimes he did and sometimes 1t
GA, then, II the stock went in the market there
would be profit, and 80 much would " into Mr. samp-
Aud Mr.. Sampson the editor of the money article
in The Times He
And that Is common practce you say Ut is prac.
toe not unusual.
Do you call that audable custom THAT say
nothing OF. but MT Sampson has great knowledge Of
financial matters and Ne is consulted by all the leading
bankers OF London.
have got the papers here, and will ask you was
there on the 10 Mar h. 1861, paragraph III Jne money
OF The Times touching the enos Ayres National
TramwaYs Company IL do not remember
Mr. q Hard objected 10 this article being put ia as
The Solicitor General-were there not paragraphs in
the money articles OF The Tunes about tue great puk OF
the companies with which you we're connecIedf
Mr. GfArd-I object 10 that question.
The Lord Chlef BarOn-I think IL Is Objectionable be
cause 1t rs question as TO the contents OF newspapers
The soIictorCi eneral-Did you pay Mr.. Sampson any
moneys the end OF 1879 I'll have already said
The Lord Chief Biron2He says II 9e gave MIN any
money 1872 iC was for the profit on allOtments.
ber 1872 I'll nave reason To or the other,
II you make any point Of II will admit that gave
BY Mr. Day. think Mr.. SIMPSONS loss respect Of
the smalgamated c0mDdnles-the Ibuan Coal Company
and the Chinese Steam Packet Compdny-was between
$1,000 and $500; Out am not quite certain Hs had
hardly acted under advice but at my suggestion. 1
one day that ne had made TINS loss, ana said would
opportunity OF reoouplng him az operations
we're brOughG me. Persons allOt shares,
il they know their buslnt would aOt them TO per
sons OF influence, and Mr. sampson person whose
position both financially and socially entitled him To the
consideration OF any board OF directors IN aotng stock
Were the shares always allotted 20 him mo- some
times profit them without tue allotment was paid
TO him.
allotment, and instead OF profit there had been loss
would you have called upon hun TO pay the loss
think should but my object would De only to give
" tUlt fnAra llR
After which Baron Grant compos-
edly swore or to use his own language:
Il deliberately swear that 1 had neither in
auence over Mr.. Sampson in what he wrote in the
money article of The Times or that had Mr.. Samp-
son under my thumb in the remotest way. say
that as emphaticalfy as the English language will
let me say H."
That does not seem TO require comment l have
preferred quoting in full these parts Of the examna-
ton. They will repay the most attentive reading
| sincerely hope Mr.. Sampson may DC ready with
complete explanation Of the circumstances in which
he receives gifts from such man as Baron Grant to
such an amount. He has been very ill-advised not
to make it at once-all the more that from what
subsequently occurred the world is left to suppose
that The Times has thrown him over. Mr.. Gifards
opening address to the jury contains the following
astonishing passage
Although sald Mr. Glfard r9ininally counsel for Mr.
sampson am here counsel for The Times newspaper
They have taken the responsibility upon themselves
and although. say, che deense s ia Mr. sampson's
name really defense OF this libel Is the defense OF
The Tunes newspaper. They would be glad at once TO
repudate unjust mputation made IN their Columns
and east OF d ,cOd those oho instruct defend any
sf in necessary 10 JUSTIFY account for the
financial proceedings 6eticeen Mr.. sampson ana Mr.
Grant They haze nothing UhdteUer 70 do cIh steh pro
ceedings Mr.. CRAM and Mr.. Sampson may make thur
otcn erc,ises may perhaps for dughi kno0 20 he
con trdry conuince not c0nriHce UOur minds WIN
that circumstance those who instruct have nothing
whatever To do They are defending tns action in Mr.
SampsOns name because thc libel is published In their
columns and they say written by whOmsOever IL was,
dictated by what motive whatsoever Vt was, care