The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-12-28
THE CHARTER OAK CASE.
VALUATIONS OF NEW YORK REAL EsrATE--wTr-
NEssEs DIFFER TO THE EXTENT OF A MILLION
IN THEIR ESTIMATES.

VALUATIONS OF NEW YORK REAL EsTATE--wIT-
NEssEs DIFFER TO THE EXTENT OF MILLION
IN THEIR ESTIMATES.
HARTFORD, Conn. Dec. 81, 1879.
The proceedings in the Charter Oak Insuranc trial
to-day limited mainly to the presentation OF tes
timony regarding the value of the New York property
held by the Charter Oak. and especially the real
value oi the properties embraced in the three mil
lion dollar downtown" purchase by Furber This
has been characterized u runous investment, and
low appraisal of IL was of the principal means
which enabled the special insurance commission to
show the insolvency of the Charter Oak in 1877 and
to the withdrawal of Furber and his associates
The appraisal referred to made by j. NJ. Taylor.
f. r. Furnald and Isaac A. Lawrence all of New York.
at the instance of the special commission and age
gated only Sl,S450O0 than million less than
was given in cash and trade by Furber.
WORTH DOWNTOWN PROPERTY.
After annoying delays the States witnesses to
this appraisal arrived here last night On the open
ing of the court this morning Mr.. Taylor was called
to the stand and gave the following his appraisals
Nos. IS and 90 Broadway S325 00o Nos. Co. II and 70
broadway $40 oOo Nos G4 and66 Broadway Sa25 goo;
No. 80 broadway. $4,000; No. 80 Broad street.
$4,000. He said he had valued this he would value
any other real estate but believed that IL there
tho property first mortgage of 1896 900 and second
mortgage OF $S00.0O0 the property would not be
marketable. Continuing his valuations he placed
Nos. II, 10 and Il Broad street at $425000 No. 81
Broadway at $3.50 and Nos. 49, 40 and ~ Broad
way at $3.50 000-making total Of 1S45.0o0 for the
properties taken at consideration Of So G0 900.
His appraisals of the uptown property was-Nos. IA
and 49, Broadway S405,000; No. 20 Howard street,
S45, 0OO No "a Howard $j5,0O0otal, S505. 900. This
valuation made i'll May, 1877; but witness did
not believe that the property worth any i'll
December, 1875. On cross-exainnation witness said
that IL he had known that the eight downtown prop
critics had rented for years for large aud
munerative rental he might have given ten fifteen
per cent greater appraisal. but he had placed the
figures that he had given the idea that New York
is moving up town, away from the property"
+. p. Furnald for the State, testified that he had
also appraised the property, making his figures
the downtown" $500 less. and on the uptown
$780, 200 more than Tayors he did not think that his
opinion to the future value of the property would
be modified by knowledge that 1t was paying six
t~per cent net on q valuation of 81, O30.OU
The State closed its testimony with that of Andrew
d. AIellick Jr., who had apprai ed the downtown
property at $4,000 more than Taylor's figures. The
State sought to get his valuations OF property
on Sixty-ir street. New York. owned by the COM
pany, but it was ruled out under the agreement by
which the State allowed the privilege Of reopen
| ing the case to-day.
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE.
Tho defence then opened with the testimony Of
William Dewey. He produced rent rolls OF the prop
| erty when owned by Matthew'S T.. z. Lawrence
cause of the elevated railroads, and Henry Morgan
testified that in 1876 Furber had interview with
| him. at which he gave the following valuations,
| -