New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-20
A1AvyER AND A CLERK IN TROUBLE.

Walter f. SHIRLEY, age twenty-five, of Brooklyn
clerk i'll the law once OF Wliiiam Sntpngn, az NO
BROOKLYN were arrested yesterday by Detectives
Reilly and Won Gercbten, on charge OF grand lar
ceny and receiving stolen goods. smiley hAu gone
10 Boston and was brought 10 this city on Monday
night NJ rutpnen's affidavit, on which the arrests
were made tells the story of tie alleged larceny at
great length. 1t appears that Smeley PAU D.en en-
ploved for several wears by Mr. Sutphen, and was
apparently trusted 10 great extent; tie received
a salary OF $40 a week. On November Mr.. Su;-
phen received from Brown q Wescott, lawyers, at
No. lis Broadway, a check for $14 S23 10 drawn TO
the order of Shib ey, although the lawyer states
that the clerk had 10 interest in the check.
check certified at the American EXCHANGE
Bank, on witch it was drawn. SHIRLEY
turned n a few minutes and said that there was
some difficulty about he certlhcaiOn of the check,
but that il would be rea ~ in few minutes. lie
soon went out again and was not aIttrwarl seen Dy
Mr. Sutpher Ii was found at the bank that the
check had been certified immediate ely upon presen-
tation. An alarm was mt through the police TO
stop the payment of the check in the afternoon
of the same day +. A. Ward, OF the law firm OF
Ward q jerks, reported ut Ar. Sutphens offce that
the check had been pres med to hlm by Henry KIP
ling AID had been let at the Bank of the Republic
tor collection Payment of the check vas stopped,
and tue next day Mr. KiplIng came to Mr.. Sutp ems
office and planned that he had been as ked TO as
sist SHIRLEY In gettna the check cashed. He APP
pearcd 10 know where the clerk could b. found, but
refused to give any information on that subject.
The check was recovered on the same day ana given
to Mr.. Sutphen.
The latter soon afterward missed four deeds,
which had not been recorded, from the safe in his
office hey, he alleges, conveyed from SHIRLEY 10
himself property valued at 100000. IL consisted OF
four lots III West ScYcntycigh h-St four houses on
the north side of FOuTthSt, near SlXh-aye., Brook
lyn four houses on The south side OF the same
street. and farm of thirty-siX acres in East Cnc
ter Westchester County These deeds II Is charged,
were taken ~ SHlbley. No explanation is gwen IN
the affidavit as t. how the {, eds made out or
a check Tor so large an amount made payable TO
CLERK al so low a salary. The affidavit iurther al
leges that SHIRLEY committed PERJURY at ya1ous
times IN swearing that he was unmarried, while 1t
is charged that he had wife liv-
ing III Brooklyn. 1t Is claimed that
he conct aed the fact to enable his wife 10 obtain
dowry right in property that was placed III his
name.
MIR. Kiping was arragned yesterday in the Court
of General Sessions, and pleaded not guilty. lie
SAID that the deeds they had come into his
possession, had been gwen 10 inspector Byrnes to be
used as he expressed IT, To expose Of the most
gigantic frauds ever attempted Judge COwing
fixed the la Il in each case at $4,000. Bail was
offered IN behalf of OF the DEFENDANTS but the
DIstrict-AttOrncy demanded time TO examine into
its suiiiciency. Both OF the prisoners were taken
to the TOmbs, where they were seen later by re-
did not care TO make an extended explanation of
side of the case. they were of getting
evidence in q few days which would fully vndicat3
hem, aud show why the attempt was made to
fasen guilt upon them The publication OF evil
dence which they hoped to get would Injure their
case. they thought. lie would say in regard TO
sta ements made by Mr.. SuIphen that tine deeds
spoken of by him were not held in trust by Mr.
Shlbley but the property described stood in Mr.
Shlbleys name by an ordinary warranty decd The
property had now been decided 10 the Pacific Bank
of Boston, when was the rghtful owner of it. Mr..
SHIRLEY denied that he mad introduced his wife 10
Mr.. Sutphen Miss Brooks, as stated by Mr..
Su;phen