New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-24
NEw-YORK, TUESDAY, JULY "a, 1883.
IVES FILES AN AFFIDAVIT.
HIS STORY ABOUT THE STOCK TRANSFER
BOTH SIDES PRESENT ARGUMENTS IN THE EXTRA
DITIoN CASE BEFORE THE oovEKNoR-THE
MATTER POSTPONED TWO wEEKG

MAlIfR POSTPONED TWO WHbhcs
fer TELEGRAPH TO THE IRIprSE
Albany, July 23.-1n the application OF tn
State of Ohio for the extraditon OF Henry S. Ives
George II Stayncr and E. Wilson Woodruff, Gov
crnor Hill this afternoon listened to arguments
The Governor came into the Executive Chambel
looking rather weary this afternoon, and said tt
the lawyers he found there: "What with the
Legislature and this case it looks as If was going
to lose my vacation this year. The lawyers pres
ent were Dstrict-Attorney Pugh and Clifford H.
Bartlett, counsel for Hamilton County, Ohio, Dis
rict-Attorney Ridgway of Brooklyn, representing
the county Of this State, in which proceedings
against Ives might be taken, and Mr., johnson, oi
Hoadley, Lauterbach & johnson, counsel fol
Ives and Stayner Mr. Johnson, the first speaker,
said in part:
This excited wide attention. tnvre mas
been much misrepresentation OF IT. especially in The
New-York Times" That paper charged that there had
been grapevine methods employed to get the nforma
ton that Ives had been indicted All can say is that
received fve different kilograms from Cincinnati inform
Ing OF this Indictment The Information gathered
the streets We resist this application for extradon'
lnsplrcd by private malice think can establish tho
fact they prosecuting Ives and Sayner for grand
larceny, when they actually to be prosecuted on
civil suit; that Is unfair.
Mr. Johnson then read afiidavits Of ives, Stayner
and himself alleging that there had been no
cmbezzlemcnt OF 27,063 shares Of the Cincinnati,
Hamilton and Dayton Railway by Ives and Stayner
as alleged by DisiIct-Attorney Pugh of Cincinnati.
Mr.. Johnson alleged that the shares had been sold
by Ives & Co. for the railroad. A portion Of the
proceeds had been used in purchasing con-
trolling interest in the Vandala and Terre llaute
Railroad, which the directors of the Cincinnati,
Hamilton and Dayton desired to acquire. More
over, Messrs. Ives and Stayner were not in Ohio
l. ~. V1rf- "A
therefore only liable to punishment in New-York
State.
Mr. johnson read an affidavit by Henry S. Ives,
dated at Niagara Falls, July FL, in which MIR. Ives
says
and Michigan referred to in the indictment
found against him part Of the 27963 shares OF the
originally belonging 10 the treasury OF the
Cincinnati. Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company and
that it belonged said treasury when George H.
stayner and T. Wilson Woodruff elected respectively
president and secretary and treasurer in June sS5 Am
ant further states that 2400 shares Of stock was sold
and disposed OF by the executive committee ana tho Boaro
OF Directors c. II. D.. either Of which had the
power and authority make said sale. Af1ant further
says the arising out Of the sale OF the STOCK
referred the indictment was deposited With the nrn
Co, that the amount was credited TO the u H.
md D. Railroad books OF Ives & Co., and ahant
Is Informed believes that the money so deposited forms
a part Of the balance due the company.
Dstrict-Attorney Pugh then stated his side OF
the case Mr. Pugh first read tie statutes OF
Ohio in regard to embezzlement. which, the Gov
ernor said were similar to those OF New fork
Mr. Pugh then said that the Indictment was found
on the fact that on January s. 1887, Ives Stayner
and Woodruff had in Cincinnati ordered +. H.
Short an employe of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and
Dayton Railroad to issue 27400 shares Of It's stock
to George w. Stern, " an empoye OF the firm
of Ives & Co." Mr.. Pugh then proceeded
The testimony before the Grand Jury showed that Ives
brought those certificates OF stock to New-York and hy
pothecated these shares his and that 5000
sbares OF stock were transferred Ives Kuhn Loeb
Co for his own personal advantage Under the laws OF
Ohio this was a crime. There is no malice in this pro-
eeedng
Governor Hill then said that he should want
affdavits upon both sides before making any de
csion and he therefore proposed postponement
until August 8.
A r,imor was circulated in Wall Street yesterday
tha Ivcs and stayner had returned this city, but as
far as could be asceraned It untrue 1t was thought
by many people that Ives had been able to foresa
the action OF the detectives who looking for him.
he might have been advised Of favorable decision
having been rendered by Governor Hill In the matter
OF his extradition The view led many To believe
in his rumored return. At 1ves's house which was
apparently closed up entirely. man servant said that
Ives was not expected to return while stayner was
expected home in a day or two, so 1t was said by
member of his family. Neither Of them had been
seen or heard Of at the Brooklyn Club OF which both
members.