Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1883-05-24

| s'Who retained your asked Mr.
"Mr. Brown, for one," said Mr.
Baldwin.
| "Who else?"
81 decline to state.
'sWhy ?"
| ssI claim the privilege of an attorney II
1 the matter have mentioned Mr.. Brown
| name, and that ought to SUFFICE"
Mr., Hubbard asked for ruling from the
| commissioners. It was but right, he said,
| that Mr.. Baldwin, who claimed to be an at
torney for the road, and SO privileged to de-
| cline to give testimony, should state who
employed him. ,
The board made no order because MIR.
Baldwin claimed the privilege of counsel.
| Mr. BALDWIN said he was a stakeholder to
the extent of ST. 900, but that was auxiliary
| TO his position as counsel. He was present
| at the meeting, but could not separate the
knowledge he obtained as counsel and as
stockholder. He was present because he was
| counsel.
Governor Hubbard examined further as to
the persons who were present at the meeting.
| That was not professional secret Mr.
Baldwin demurred, but finally stated. Then
! he was asked who presided, but declined &c
disclose on the same ground. Who retained
| him he answered to the extent of saying that
| Mr. Brown was the first person who spoke
| to him, but he spoke for others as well as
SoNA1A@3-Ao
railroad company. Who these other parties
were was maintained to be confidential dis
closure.
Governor Hubbard thought it was impor-
tant to know who retained him to ascertain
how far hisprotectiou went.
The commissioners thought Mr.. Baldwin
could separate that which was professional
secret from that which was not.
MIR. Hamilton read from Greenleaf.
Mr.. Baldwin stated that he had testified
that he had been retained by Mr.. Brown and
others interested in organizing the railroad
company. That WAS sufficient. He declined
to state who the others were.
Mr.. Hyde said it was important to know
SO that they might be examined to learn
whether they had any connection with the
enterprise. Perhaps some were present who
had not retained Mr.. Baldwin.
Commissioner Woodruff admitted the ques-
ton.
"Who were YOU retained by?" asked Gov
ernor Hubbard.
sIewis NJ Brown; he retained me for
the gentlemen who were engaged in getting
up the company I received the retainer and
put it down as from Lewis nj. Brown ct al.
was retained last September; 1 think he
told me Lee, Higginson & Co. were interest
ed; the articles of association were not
drawn until months afterward; don't now
recall that had any communication with any
one but Mr. Brown; my impression is that
Mayor Lewis was chosen chairman I was
not to my recollection there as secretary"
Mr. Baldwin testified that he could only
reoollect notifying Mayor Lewis in advance
that the matter of making directors would
come up at the December 20 meeting. AS a
matter of recollection he did not know that
any subscribers but those at the meeting had
knowledge that the same was to be held, and
outside of two persons the witness had no
personal knowledge that anyone else knew
fS,h he aIo tod OF onof
ing.
Mr.. Hyde then began to question Mr..
Baldwin. power of attorney that had
been submitted was produced and Mr.. Bald
win was asked when the signatures to it
were obtained. He refused to answer and
charged Mr.. Hyde with Fishing for pro fes-
sional secrets" moment later the witness
arose and addressing the commissioners said
that there was 'tlittle use in employing coun-
sci for corporations if the counsel are to be
examined by enemies of such corpora tions
and compelled to disclose professional Sc
crets." After parley Mr.. Hyde took up a
new line of examination.
The witness said that before the December
20 meeting it had been agreed, in talking
the matter over with Mr.. Brown and a num-
Der of subscribers, that certain ones would
be elected directors. This was done with
the consent of Boston, New York and Chica-
go stockholders.
Al ILLS stage Gu0 lawyers aaQ AnOCQ6f IllG,
and Mr.. Hubbard, primed with several law
books, arose to argue that Mr.. Baldwin as
party to the transaction involved in the
matter of the formation of the Hartford and
Harlem road could not retire behind his pre-
fessional character and decline to answer
questions. Mr.. Hubbard's speech was char
acteristio and was listened to with much in
terest. When he said of Mr. Baldwin that
''much learning hath made him mad" it
was done SO good naturally that everybody
laughed. A moment after, in quoting q
name from law book he asked, Baldwin,
how do you pronounce that name anyway ?"
Gas I'm witness under oath 1 must de-
cline to answer once more,' was the reply.
Commissioner Woodruff said that as the
board understood it, ''what Mr. Baldwin
knows as an incorporation of this company,
although he was an attorney, he must dis
close; but any communication made to him
as counsel he need not disclose"
Mr.. Hyde resumed his examination 1t
was not long before Mr.. Baldwin sharply
said: ''You must fish for easier gudgeon
than if you expect to get in questions that
have been overruled.' Then Mr.. Hamilton
took his turn in questioning Mr.. Baldwin.
Andrew Bryson, civil engineer, who sur
veyed the Hartford and Harlem road, was
next called to testify by Mr.. Hyde. He was
led to say, after many questions, that the
projected line of the Hartford and Harlem
road, as on file at the Secretary of States
Office in Hartford, was only on paper; there
were no stakes set out although an actual
survey had been made. An experimental
line had been staked out but not filed. and
from this the line filed had been projected by
calculation. At 1 o'clock a recess was taken
for an hour.
In the afternoon Engineer Bryson resumed
his testimony. When Mr. Hyde asked a
question about the profile of the new loca-
ton of the road Mr.. Baldwin objected and
t. ,I~eAo.1 H. 4 90 7.
close the new profile and line of the road.
In this he was sustained by the commission
ers Mr.. Bryson's examination was contin-
ued at considerable length, but no facts of
interest were brought to light.
N. G.. Scofeld was called. He said he was
q civil engineer. Had made surveys of the
Harlem river and New Rochelle road. Had
made re surveys of New York and New Ha-
ven, Naugatuck and Housatonic roads.
have examined the surveys of the Hartford
and Harlem through the city of Bridgeport
and also the profile. The profile is not cor
rect according to survey, as the ground
file as it really Is. Taking the
map from Saugatuck river to Fairfield, I
cannot locate the projected line and a man
could not tell whether it crossed his land or
not. Witness said that the map itself was
not a general profile of that section of
Bridgeport through which the road was pro-
POSCO W DC OuAts
A. L. Winton, of Bridgeport, was called.
He is proprietor of the Berkshire mills
The projected line runs through his
property between his house and barn, and
from the map he would say that it must run
either through his house or close to it. He
said his house was worth about 1926, 900. He
said the difference between the two surveys
would be $40, GOO on his property
81. R. Parrott, of Bridgeport, was called
and said he saw the surveyors making a Law
out late last fall. They passed near his fac |
tory and staked the line out. His property |
is on Washington avenue and runs through |
to North avenue. He never knew of the |
present located line until March II. The !!
present contour did not compare with the |
line on file in the Secretary of States Office. /
The profile did not compare at all with the !
present line, but is entirely different from !
the line they filed. Both profile and line are |
imaginary.
The directors to the legality of the layout !
rested at this point.
Mr.. Baldwin called Mr.. Lewis NJ. Brown
rs the first witness for the Hartford and
Harlem. In reply to Mr.. Baldwin, witness
said he had authority from Charles A. Whit
tier to fill subscription blanks at his discre-
lion. I asked Mr.. Whittier to be present in
New Haven at the stockholders meeting.