The Portland daily press., 1888-12-14
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PICTURE.
Counsel Hoar opens the Defence In
the Prehie Case,
Claiming that His Clients Acted in
Good Faith.
Jurors to be Guided by the Law, Not
by Sympathy.

BOSTON, Dec l13-This is the third day of
the now famous Preble suit in the United
States Circuit Court. With the testimony Of
the mother and the son, most Of the facts Of
the plaintiff s case are before the public.l
Mrs. Preble and her son Edward enjoyed
an undisturbed tete- a-tete this morning,
while General Butler and an expert stock
broker, named Joseph G. Martin. held an an
mated conversation respecting the past and
present values of stocks and bonds alleged
to have been wrongfully converted to their
own use by Bates and Valley. Justice Colt
listened patiently to the witnesses recapitu-
lation of prices and his story of market fiuc-
tuations, Counsel Hoar putting in an occa-
sional objection and Counsel Southland look
ing sharp after the papers needed by his
senior, the General.
The court was more crowded th an usual,
numerous friends of the plaintiffs being
present.
Counsel Hoar again urged his motion that
the court order the plaintiffs to elect the
causes OF action upon which they rely. Gen.
eral Butler opposed the motion, and the
Judge directed that the defendants should
offer their defence
Counsel Hoar, in his add dress to the jury,
referred to the rights of the complainants to
precede the defendants in their statements
to the court.B But this, he declared, at the best
was exparte, and ought not to influence the
Jury until the whole case was before them.
lhere was another side to the picture in the
case OF Preble VS.. Bates. He urged the Jury
TO hold their minds open, so as to receive the
evidence Tor the defence and the rulings of
M law which would be given by his honor,
the presiding judge.
The case before them was a peculiar one.
IL mad attracted public and private attention,
not alone by the prominence of the parties
In the case, but also by the reputation of the
plaintih's counsel. The history of the case
was not pleasant one-it was especially
painful Here they had an elderly gentle
woman, who. by the hands of her only son.
had been robbed of all her property, Such
an element in the case was enough to attract
the sympathy OF every human mind. Verify,
,,,.s tne story was painful one. But the jury
must not be Influenced by sentiment; they
must be ruled by law. Mrs. Preble was in
possession OF certain securities which had
come to her through her husband and father
She had been deprived of all that property
py her only son. He went to several stock
oroklng concerns and speculated. He took
nyer" IN New York. He engaged in no
business. but in 1877 he thought il necessary
lot some purpose to begin to use his moth
ers property, and in the course of time he
A"u uOoPOiicu utI OI all sue possessed. ana
gentlemen, you must notice that there was
only one box in which Mrs. Preble's and her
SON property was deposited. He had the
iullest facilities to use this box or place of
deposit. de was constantly engaged in cut
ting coupons from bonds. On account of his
mothers infrm condition re was often en-
gagged In doing financial business, either for
hlnsen or his mother, which necessitated
going TO that place of deposit where his
miotners securities were kept Now, while
ttxr off 10 far, exxrtfh
MS mother, he was actually stealing her
property and telling her false stories about
DIS transactions, so as to keep her in Ignor-
ance OF lis movements. Later this son elect
ed TO go to ii. NJ. Bates & Valley, through
which firm he subsequently carried on his
business: The firm of Bates q Valley was
one OF high reputation and great experience
@ ana without stain or flaw on its character.
rms Mr. Prebe went to Bates & VALLEY, ,and
began buying and selling stocks, shares and
bonds on his own judgment, and of course
from what information he could obtain from
Inose about him. In all transactions by Mr..
treble and Bates Il Valley, the former was
treated as every other customer. The firms
only interest was to get from him the regular
commission common to brokers. By and by
Mr.: Preble began buying stocks tn margin,
and IN these transactions he used his mothers
securities.
the evidence given by Edward Preble was
not true. Bates and Valley, he declared,
had dealt with Mr.. Preble without any in
formation as to the securities he traded in
not being his own property. Counsel further
declared that he was prepared to prove that
two years before the first transaction with
Bates u Valley, Mr.. Preble had already
Ia en- some of the bonds belonging TO his
mother. and used them in speculation.
Counsel said that they had irrefragable evil
dence that many of Mr.. Preble's statements
ON the stand were false. The were able to
prove that no intimation had ever been
made to either Valley or Bates that the
property which Preble was using belonged
to anybody but himself. Preble represented
himself as man of wealth. No limitations
to that wealth were ever disclosed to Bates
q VALLEY. Heacted and lived as o man of
wealth. and in all his dealings with the firm
he was believed to be a man Of property, and
using his own securities. The defence de-
clared that in the suit between Mrs. Preble
and her son and the defendants, Bates &
Valley, there had been an attempt TO hold
the persons who had dealt with the securi-
ties, merely as brokers. liable for the value
OF these securities. Counsel declared that
the only wrong in the case had been done by
the principal witness in the case, Edward
Preble.