New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-11-23
RAKING WINS FORE and AFT
MIR. CocKRAN's HEAVY GUNS OPEN ON HIM.
THE CITY CHAMBERLAIN RENDERED TX,
TREMELY UNCoMFoRTABLE-AwAIT
ING TIE VERDICT.

ING THE VERDICT.
City Chamberlain william ". WINS was made
extremely uncomfortable yesterday afternoon In Part
I Of the Superior Court when Congressman w. Bourke
Cochran summed up the case for the plaintiff IN
the suit of Mrs Madge Stone against Mr. Twins for the
recovery Of 81 900 which she says the City Cham
beraln obtained from her by fraudulent representa-,
tons. The courtroom crowded, and when Nh.
Cochran in his loudest tones denounced the trans
actions OF Mr. wins deliberate fraud the excite
ment intense.
Mr. Twins resumed his testimony about the contracts
and in cross-examlnation testified that he was In
partnership with Roger A. Pryor at The time OF the
transactions. They had stock in the International
Chemical Company given them In return for their
services. Mr. WINS bought out bis partners share
of stock lie paid 800 for It and admitted that hc
sfterward sold 1t for $1,000.
"Dld Mr. Pryor withdraw from the firm because
he discovered thai you sold for $1,000 stock for which
you had paid $IO09" asked Mr.. Cochran.
A" He left the firm because he was not a business
man." said Mr. WINS. The witness also admitted
that exsecwtary Of tho Treasury Hugh McCulooh
Of the incOrporst0rs OF tho company lie
denied that he had sold the plaintiff any stock and
assorted that he only had contract with Mrs. Stone
sell her his interest In the international Chemical
Company Ex-surrogate Rollins then summed up.
He contended that Mr.. WINS merely conveyed his
interest in the company lie produced several re-
oepts and then proceeded
Let me read you, gentlemen OF the jury, one OF
these receipts Received from Mrs. Madge Stone five
hundred dollars account Of part Of interest," as per
agreement relative to the International Chemical
Company of New-York.' Now / think that Is plain
enough, and / ask you. did Mr. Wins deceive her
she claims? Let call your attention to Mrs
Stones testimony on page 10 Of the minutes She
says that Mr. Carpenter sent her Of the agreements
and that she glanced at 1t and signed It and then put
1t away In her desk Now claim that Mr. WINS
made no false statement When this charge was
made 1t Mr.. Ivlns's duty to come before Jury
and let them settle the and not make any
settlement outside. He could not afford to allow IL
to be settled except by jury
Mr. Cochran said 81 cannot congratulate Mr.
Rollins on the way In which he has presented bis case
/ object to his saying that Mr. WINS cannot AFFORD
to right wrong; that as a public officer he
compelled to bring the in court Now, gentlemen,
want to call your attention TO page is Of the testi-
mony. Mr. Rollins read page 49,
Mr. Rolns-YOu do not propose to fmpute to ms
any desire to misrpresent the facts
Mr. Cockran--I do not say so, but you have read
only portion Of the evidence bearing on one point
am trying this case on the ground that this woman
has been defrauded out Of $1,000 and ask you,
gentlemen of the Jury to look at the evidence all
through and not at certain portions Of it. And think
It will demonstrate to you beyond DOUBT mar Il
wins had nothing 10 sell, absolutely nothing. 10
was a cunningy devised instrument for connecting
lawyer and this poor woman alone in business
transaction. How easy II for him TO get her 10
sign anything he wanted. That's how those alleged
contracts came.'
Chief Justice Sodgwlck charged tho Jury briefly.
He said that If they believed that WINS was not ths
owner OF the stock but had only the power OF con-
veying IT, then he guilty Of fraud which was
felony A sealed verdict then ordered.
ANOTHER EFFORT FOR THE P0LICYDEALER
Before Judge Lawrence, in the Supreme Court Chan,
bers yesterday, the Of Herman Emerson the pol
icy man. who was convicted tn. testimony Of James
f. Bedel forger, and sentenced to one year In
the pcntenary and fine Of 81 000 came up on an ap
plicaton permanent stay. Mr.. Howe claimed that
an error had been committed the Indictment There
were three counts misdemeanor and the other two
felones. lie contended that Emerson could only 10
committed OF these three counts as the penalties
were different. Decision reserved.
APPEALING FROM THE FIRE COMMISSIONERS
appeal Ffemen william J. O'Connor and Josep.
Keegan the action OF the Fire Commissioners In
them from the department argued yester
day In the General Term Of the Supreme Court. The
found guilty by the Board OF stealing prop
erty belonging Earl & Wilson the Union Square
fire July T. Civil Justice Steckler argued that the
Board had jurisdiction. the offence OF which the
fremen accused Of criminal nature and should
have been passed upon by the courts Assistant Corpora
ton Counsel Dean appeared for the Fire Department
Decision reserved