The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-09-19
THE TRIAL OF HENRY S. IVES
His Peculiar Financial Transactions EX-
planned by Several Witnesses.
Prosecution Rests Its Case. and the Attorney
for the Defense Immediately Makes Mo-
tion for Acquittal, Which Is Denied.

NEW YORK, Sept. 1s-Henry s. Ives was
again early in court this morning. At
few minutes after 10 O'clock he was in his
accustomed place. The lateness of the ses-
sion last night did not seem to have in any
way interfered with him. The first witness
called to-day was Mr. Henry MCGOWAN, a
member of the firm of Hellmus, MCGOWAN
Il Co.. On June %. 1888, the witness ar
ranged loan for Henry S. Ives & Co. 1t
was for ESQ 900 sterling The loan was
secured from Kuhn, Loeb 81 Co. The col
lateral received was 2. 500 shares of c.. II. q
ID. common stock. The witness dealt with
Ives as the representative of the firm in all
dealings. On cross-examination the wit
ness said he had known Ives for some time,
and had a number of business transactions
with him from May, 1886. up to the failure
of the firm in 1887. He was witness in the
by the prosecution. Russell Sage asked
him to go. Mr.. Sage at that time held
loan of the witnesses firm.
DO you remember saying to Mr.. Ives
that you had TO testify, or old Sage would
counsel asked
Il don't remember"
THAT loan is held over you yet, is it
noti'
'.Yesn
Witness said he knew Julius Dexter,
president of the c., H. g. ID. road, and that
gentleman had visited him since the in-
dictments were found.
Mr.. Hellmus Mr.. McGowan's partner,
took the stand and testified that he made
the negotiations with Kuhn, Loeb q Co.
for the loan of Esq 600. The loans, he said,
were subsequently, paid by Ives g. Co.
Additional testimony on this point was
given by other attaches of the banking
house, and William A. Merrick, a clerk for
Drexel Morgan 81 Co, testified to the re-
ceipt of 800 shares of stock offered by Ives
& Co. as security for the loan of f52, 900.
Edward Burns. cashier of the American
Exchange National Bank, testified that his
bank was registrar of the stock of the Gin
cinnati, Hamilton 81 Dayton railroad. He
kept book of entries for registration of
stock for the road, and exhibited the book,
which contained entries from Aug. 26, 1886,
to June IL, 1883. The first certificates were
registered on the former date. When the
first new certificates were registered by the
bank the cancelled certificates were not
called for, nor did the bank cancel any of
the old stock until April IA, 1887. From
that time on the bank Cancelled old certifi-
Gates when new stock was issued. In the
spring of 1887 Ives vas asked for the old
certificates. This was about April "a.
Burns called at the office and asked both
Woodruff and Ives for the old certificates,
and insisted upon having them that day.
He went to the bank and waited there un-
til nearly half-past 10 o'clock at night, when
all the certificates he had demanded were
handed in. Some days afterward the can
celled certificates bearing red stamp were
returned to Mr.. Woodruff.
The cross-examination was now begun.
The witness went over the ground of the
demand for the certificates. Ives did not
demur when asked for them, but remarked
that IL was rather incOnyenlent.
By Juror-Why did you not demand The
stock beforer
Because did not want it,"
Ives's Office that some of the stock could
not be got as it was in Cincinnatip
.sNo, SIR"
Mr.. Smith, Ives's ex-assistant cashier,
was recalled. His testimony was merely a
repetition of what bad already been testi-
he'd TO.
Just here, from the utmost activity and
determination upon the part of the prose-
cution and defense, both sides seemed to
lapse into a strange guiotude. District At
torney Fellows sat back in his chair and
handled bis eyeglasses: He looked like
one who thought his days work was done.
Lawyer Brooke eyed him laughingly.
There was something mp, but just what it
was no one could say definitely. Then q
rumor went through the courtroom that
the prosecution had rested. This was soon
confirmed by statement to that effect by
Colonel Fellows.
Lawyer Brooke at once moved that the
jury be instructed 10 acquit the defendant.
In making this motion Mr.. Brooke argued
that the unsupported evidence of Wood
| ruff, who was self-confessed accomplice
| in the crime charged. could not. under the
| law, be considered by the Jury: and, furth-
| ermore, that the alleged fraudulent issue
| of stock had not been made within the
| jurisdiction of this court, the sign.
ing and sealing of the same hav-
| ing been done in Brooklyn, in the
! jurisdiction of the courts of Kings
| county. Mr. Brooke also argued that the
Indictment of Ives as an officer of the Gin.
cinnati. 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 oi
| New York could only be taken as agents Of
the company, not as officers.
Recorder Smythe denied the motion II
acquit Ives. and said that he would leave
the case to the jury. Mr. Brooke noted al
| exception to this decision.
| The court then adjourned until to-mor
row morning. when Mr.. Brooke will begiI
the argument for the defense.