New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-09
MIR. FISH SLIPS UP FOR ONCE
FORCED TO CONTRADICT HIMSELF.
svp TRIAL NEARLY ENpED-TEsTIMoNf 10 h''
coon CHARACTER NOT ALLOWED.

.,,v ryprD-TEsTIMoNY TO HIS
GOOD CHARACTER NOT ALLOWED
"a. psnsaict,s courtroom had a number OF
distinguishedlookin occupants sba Good char
ocer of James d. Fish, whose trial Is Drawing a re- ~
q close. The examination OF Mi; FISH was WA his his
sumed and he ss was sSgn nes10CCYl Clarke Smith
owl own t VTa'e hv DisIrict-httorney Root he
was apparently much disturbed py sv was
of the questions especially t;an Of a letter
that he at first construed as applying 70 eS that
Grant In answer 20 Mr.. Stanley ne tssIn eud one
as he was entering the once OK oo9 hn met General
Grant and asked HIM how the business was go nS
on General Grant answered, IS w. was
Sbenomenal. AZ think" he said. that we nave
made more money this year than any So'hIoE Mr.
Wall Street OF perhaps in the county; M Fish
askad If the General had looked over the Dook Ts
hui he said that he had only looked V No,,vere
F Ra0 tested in answer
his counses questions that when he wrote 10 ve
saying "Will not the General be WILLIE sgsre ~ 70
his note for that $50 900 loanf" ne releireu " ~
loan to General Grant but on cross examlnation ~
was shown that the loan was one ptoc c Led
In General Grants name. MI. Stanley ashou
issoi and partner along N ''' '
The witness-Geuera Grant. ~
When Mr. Root inquired about the same lna%on
II appcared that at the time the letter was wrtte
General Grant not partner OF tne t hn3 one
that other illusions in the letter shoMop ot asked
of the Younger Grants was meant. Nj. ho0t hod
WHY the witness had asked General Grant II ho nd
examined the books of the firm. MI FISH ie"n0U
back and said: ,ha
mad time to ask him it right had, and haa
O." Had you ever examined the books of the firm A.
Odd You suspect when spoke TO General eranf
that there was anything wrong Win inc "ooA' A.
9."Then why did you ask Alt was question
had right to ask
Mr.. Root produced letter from the witness &c 70
Ward in which he advised that the firm sell '1e
Belmont Nine but if Ward were unwlnhg 10 no
that he directed that the portion oeonghg 10 oico
witness should be sold at the best possible price.
The LETTER was marked private" and The Wil!er
asked that neither General Grant nor his son DC III
formed of the contents of the letter.
O-when you directed that General Grant anu MS SOY,
be not Informed the value OF their property were
YOU fairly illustrating the method in which you proposed
Jnly s. 1881 Al wished the firm to sell out
Q-But you did not moan that General Grant OF ms sou
sbSud know a ythng sbout 1t until yon got OUT Al
did not think it necessary to give him my opni9h
rsSc.ary 10 ask General Grants opinion about the con
tents of the firms books, which you say you hao never
examInedi Alt was question that hau risu' W
Mr.. Fish appeared much relieved when he was
allowed to leave the witness-stand. ne tooK MS
seat beside his counsel and soon took out MS pen
knife and resumed b. constant care OF his nngeT-
nails Charles W. Bangs the counsel ior John r.
s MSIr1s made i by Mr. Fish on May 3 1884
The assignment was also identified by Mr.. Fish
and was offered in evidence, but Judge Benedlct
reserved his decision to admitting u. Donald
Mckay of the banking house OF VermlIye& 20,
was called to testify that 1t as the custom Win
firms in Wall street when they wished TO borrow
money of banks in excess of 10 per cent OF their
capita TO put the loans in the names of other per
sons Mr. Root did not cross-exainne TINS witness
James j. Sullivan, clerk ia the Controllers Office,
testified that Grant & Ward had bought 81 OOO,Oo0
i'm city revenue bonds on May q which were not de-
livere till afterward.
Ex-Governor John T. Hoffman testified that he
had known MIR. Fish for many years
and that he had good reputa-
tIon for integrity and honor No cross exam
ination was made and Judge Benedict decided that
ms that fact was not there was no need
of further evidence on that point. Mr. Clarke SAID
flat there were many witnesses present TO give EVIL
depce on that subject but they were not allowed 10
testify Among those whom the defence expected
10 cali to prove tho good reputation OF Mr FISH
were Judges Donohue and Van Brunt, George y
Coe. j. ID. Vermilye, Daniel Drake Smith and VIII
lam ii. Cox. s 80
Irving Fish a son of the defendant, who acted as
his fathers clerk and John ID. Fish, the cashier OF
the bank were called to prove that the canvas Dag
waich Ward sa d contained 81 100000 IN bonds
and other securities had been lett with the BANK
few DAYS before the failure MI Clarke sald mat
onlv one more witness would be called for the de-