St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-09-19
THE TESTIMONY ALL IN.
Arguments in the Ives Case Will
Begin To-Day.

Begin To-Day.
NEW YORK, Sept. 1S.-The Ives case
was continued this morning in the gen.
eral sessions court. Henry E. mellow
an, of 1863 Flatbush avenue, Brooklyn,
first took the stand. The witness said
he was a member of the firm of Hill
mers, MCGOWAN & Co. In June, 1886,
when in business at SO Wall street. he
arranged loan with Henry S. Ives. the
amount being $4,000. The signature of
the check was identified, as were also
the other checks submitted for his in
Spection. Lawyer Brooke then took
the witness in hand, and drew out from
him that he had gone to Cincinnati to
testify at the defendants first trial
there.
ION your return from Cincinnati do you
remember seeing Mr.. Ives, and congratulate
ing him on his acquttal. telling him that
you would not have gone to testify against
him only you were made to do so at the in
stance of Russell Sage, Mr.. Sage holding
loan on your firm at the timer
Il don't remember"
Witness was asked several times
about certain tiippant conversations al
legged to have been made by him, but he
knew nothing at all about them. The
senior member of the firm of Hillmers,
MCGOWAN q Co. was then called, and
testified that as far as he was aware
both the loans made by his house to
Ives d Co. were fair. open and legiti-
mate transactions, and that both had
been paid in full. John G. Bucken,
bookkeeper of Hillmers, MCGOWAN &
Co., was next called. The general char
acter of his testimony was technical and
wholly unimportant. Warren L. Sam
81 co.
81 Co., came next, but his testimony was
ceeded by William A. Merrick, trans
fer clerk employed by the same firm,
who only answered few questions.
John Wilson. a clerk in the bank of
New York, testified to having received
as clerk to Ives bank a check on de-
post for $50, 900. and recorded the same.
The next witness was Edward Burns,
of the American Exchange National
bank, the concern mentioned in previ-
Gus testimony as having been appointed
registrar of the fraudulently issued
stock.
Witness on being asked 'Can you remem-
Der when the certificates were first regis
tered?" replied. ION Aug 6, 1856
SAT the time Of the receipt of the certif-
Gates was any of the stock canceledr'
Not by the bank"
against the new iSSue?"
b Yes; on April Ia"
''W hat took place when you asked for the
old certificates at the office of Ives & Corr
II told Mr.. Woodruff that must have them
at once and he said it would be hard job to
get them together that day, but that they
would make the attempt. | waited to receive
them at the bank until 1880 that night,
stamping them as fast as they came in
After some further unimportant testi-
mOny the court took recess until 2 p.
m. When court recOnvened at 2:20 p.
IN. the prosecution announced that they
rested their case, and would call no
other witnesses. This action seemed to
surprise both the court and the defend
ing lawyers. The latter held short
conference, the result of which was that
LAWYER Brooke moved that the jury be
instructed to acQuit the defendant. In
making this motion, Mr.. Brooke argued
that the unsupported evidence of Wood
ruff, who was Self-confeSsed accom-
plice in the crime charge, could not I'M
der the law be considered by the jury;
and. furthermore, that the alleged
fraudulent issue of stock had not been
made within the jurisdiction of this
court, the signing and sealing of the
same having been done in Brooklyn in
the jurisdiction OF the courts of
Kings county. Mr.. Brooke also ar
gued that the Indictment of Ives as
an officer of the Cincinnati, Hamilton
& Dayton company was defective, as.
the officers of the company could act as
such only within the state of Ohio, from
which state the company had received
its corporate rights. Therefore, any
action of the officers in the state of New
York could only be taken as agents of
the company, not as officers. Recorder
Smyth denied the motion to acquit Ives,
and said that he would leave the case to
the jury MIR. Brooke noted an eXcep-
ton TO this decision. The court then
adjourned until tomorrow morning,
when Mr.. Brooke will begin the argu-
ment for the defense.