Connecticut western news., 1888-01-04
MESSRS. GOULD AND SAGE.
THE NEW YORK DISTRICT AT HORNETS RECOMMENDATION.
Their Handling of the Kansas Pa ciflc Trust to be Investigated.

Dlsrtict Attorney Maritime filed a memoran- dun on the proceedings instituted in October last Tn the District Attorneys office on con- Plaint of Lawyer William H. De Lancey, charging Jay Gould and Russell Sage with grand larceny in wrongfully converting and withholding S3, 900 900 of securities of the Kansas Pacific Trust in 1879.
 The accusations were to the effect that on May l, 1e79, Gould and Sage, as trustees, be- came possessed of S3OOO, OOJ of Denver Pacific and telegraph stock, under deed of trust by the Kansas Pacific Railway Company Ca part of whose assets the Denver stock was) for the ben efit of holders of Kansas Pacific consolidated bonds; that on Jan. IA, 1880, at a meeting in Jay Gould's house, the consolidation of the Union Pacific, the Kansas Pacific and the Den- yer Pacific was agreed on, and memorandum was drawn up and sighed by the mi ials of those present, by which the Denver Pacific stock in trust was to be taken and divided principally between Gould and Sage, that in pursuance of the scheme Gould and Sage, as officers and majority stockholders of the Kansas Pacific, wrote to Gould and Sage as trustees for the bondholders, asking the trustees to return the stock to the volving the theory that it was of no great value; that Gould and Ssge as trustees, re- fused to do so without an order of court; that the order was obtained fraudulently from tine Supreme Court and that thus, with the appa- rent sanction of the Court, the trust securities, which, by reason of the secret consolidation agreement were about to increase enormously in market value, were surre rendered at trifling valuation by Gould and Sage, trustees for the bondholders, to Gould and Sage, owners of the Kansas Pacific.
 Mir. Martine's memorandum is as fo lows:
 ''The application is to present to the Grand Jury charge of larceny against Gould and Sage under section 5i1 of the Code. In my opinion the acts with the commi sion of which the defendants are charged constitute a crime. possible obstacle to successful prosecution of the persons complained of is the statute of limitations. Yet there are strong reasons for believing that that obstacle is not insurmount- able. The statute under which it is sought to prosecute may be construed ns to enable the people to proceed notwithstanding the statEte of limitations, and such construction would have much support in re esson and common sense. The question is SO close, and the inter- ests involved here, as we'll of the people as of the defendants, are so important, that it seems proper to leave the determination of this ques- tion of law to the courts. In order to effect this result the facts should be laid before the Grand Jury, and, if proven an indictment found and tried"
 Section 541 of the Code prescribes as pen alty for the crime it defines imprisonment for not less than five or more than ten years, and, in addition, at the discretion of the court a fine not exceeding the value of the property stolen, with interest and twenty per cent. ad- ded, and, if the fine be not paid, five years more of imprisonment.