New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-19
THE PROSECUTION RESTS.
WEISS SIDE MUST NOW TESTIFY,
, SURPRISE FOR THE DEFENDANT-TAK1NG
ROUTINE EvIDENCE--THE TRIAL SOON
TO CLOSE.

Attorney Fellows said that ne hdu u" hl"io "i'Oa''s
~ call No one heard this statement without
.,tehrort and II was a great surprise to the de-
oo,cc Charles W. Brooke told Recorder smyth that
no was completely taken aback; that he had had no In
,aHon that the people intended to rest SO sooh ana
that he feared he could not AVOID some deiay 'Ha'
would not have been necessary had he received Warn-
ing in time to prepare for going on with inc ueIehuahe
side of tho case Ives and his counsel theh spent
como fen or fifteen minutes in consultation Aier
this conference Mr. Brooke moved that the court IN
struct the jury to acqult inc uVie"u"' ~
smyth denied the motion.
Tho court.room was crowded at both the afternoon
and evening sessions. the accounts OF Inc sensational
testimony of Woodruff having attracted great many
peope who cherished vague hopes OF hearing thrlihs
evidence and seeing soul stlrrne scenes Ihcy were
disapponted The resting OF the prosecution was inc
only feature OF the proceedings that was az all sehSa
tional.
Henry n MCGOWAN OF the firm of Hillmcrs Nc
Coyan & Co.. testified. I'm answer TO Assistant Dis
trct.Atorrcy Parker, that I'm June, 1856 when IN
huslncss az No. Is Wa-st.. he arranged for loan
Of 80 600 pounds sterling for Henry 5 ives The
firm that he dealt with in negotiating 'hc loan was
Kuhn. Loeb a. Co. The witness had some talk with
Ives about the commission, and the collateral offered
was $500 shares Of the common stock OF the Gin
cnnatl. Hamilton and Dayton Railroad
Did YOU. on November ). 1856, negotiate another
loan for Ives & CO - asked Mr.. Parker
MFR Brooke. VINO had objected 10 nearly every qnes-
,,, nv which the information regarding the first loan
was obtained objected in the most strenuous terms to
This one also discussion ended by The Recorder
ruling that the question had direct bearing on inc
overtssue ~ stock Then Mr.. McGcwan a'sWcred
hot tho loan was negotiated through Drcxcl Mo-: gan
T. 70 and that the amount of 1t was Sj2.OOo. The
,-itpees on behalf Of his firm. dealt with ives CO.
or that OCCASION and he identified his signature on
check that was produced.
In ,ho cross-c> animation of Mr.. MCGOWAN by Mr..
Rrooke some Of the questions and answers recorded
were follows: .to, Va.
o-And you had quite a number OF business trahsac'
lions with him. had you mott Ayes Sr' au'e mum
her Tbey extended 1886 until the time Of the iaulg
n You wer, witness in another case connected WIN
rves7 Ayes, sir.
o.-whercl Am Cincinnati
o-you are on friendly terms with 1ves' A'-fes.
n was it at any ones that you went to Gin
cinna; to testify against IYesl A-AeS ST. -,
o-Whosel Al went at the instance OF HuSseH
o'-Your firm was Indebted to Russell Sage at that
time. WIS It notl Ayes Sr.
n When Ives returned from Cincinnati; did you not
orcr,tuIate him ard tell him that you had to testify BE-
cause sage held a loan against youi A-No sir
o-Thc loan was past due. was It notl A.-4@.
O,-saqe holds that loan over you to-day1 Ayes SIR
go that the attitude Of affairs Il the same To-Day
(Obiactlu made and sustained Qu'Hi"H N"N''A'N''
o-Dm YOU ever TIL Mr. Moore, steno2rapher for Ives
70 that Mr. Parker had subpoenaed you, and that MI
Dexter hal ansacKed your Office every day Tor inc past
month"; A.-No, sir. o,.
II. C. HnImers. of the firm Of Hllmers, Mcgowan
d CO.. was next called, and gave evidence similar u
that of his partner Mr. MCGOWAN. in regard TO the
loan Of SO COO pounds sterling Mr. llmers never saw
rhe collateral given II was taken by the clerk nom
the office Of Ives & Co. directly 10 that OF huhn'
Loeb & Co.. with whom the loan was negotiated
John C. Bucken bookkecpcr for Hillmers NC
Gowan & Co., gave additional testimony ABOUT 'h'
loans The first that of the $4,000 POUNDS s'crlhs
was to run for sixty days. The collateral was -'oo
shares of Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton common
stock. On August 10, 1856, another loan was made
and the same collateral was put up for sixty days
The loan was renewed under the same conditions on
october 16, 1885, and 1t was subsequently, seuleu'
Warren L. Samson, a clerk with DTexel Morgan
& Co.. said that on November B. 1856, that hrln heiu
as collateral for loan to II. S. Ives Co. humDer
Of shares of Cincinnati Hamilton and Dayton StocK
Mr. Parker produced this stock and the witness
identified It.
10 was followed by william A. Merrich. transfer
clerk in the office OF Drexe Morgan Co., who test
fed that he attended the transfer Of the stock gwen
bv Ives & Co. as collateral. and duly entered the
transfers in the transfer book
John wilson. bank clerk in the Bank OF tho state
OF New York said that he used to keep the accounts
OF Henry S. Ives & Co., and Indicated IN the leuser
the entry OF check for so50,13S % In payment OF
the loan Of $4,000 pounds sterling maze ny hiiois'
MCGOWAN & Co.
Edward Burns the cashier OF the American EH-
change Bank who, according to woodruff, scaeu
Ives and Woodruff badly by dropping IN on 'heln
one day and asking for old certificates, gave MS
version OF the affair. lie said The American En-
change Bank registered the certificates OF stock Oh
the c. H. and D. road in 1856 to the extent OF
nfUf tod
the stock about July TO- 1886. In April, 1887, 1t
asked Ives for the old certificates for cancellation
7 called at the Office and asked Woodruff and Ives
for the certificates, saying that must have theln
that day Their reply was that II would DO dHhcuit
TO let have them in that time, but ssld "oull
wait in the bank that night. ] did so, ana the Oh
cert,ecates were returned and / made the entries.
Some days afterward the certificates were stamped
(cancelledD with red stamp and were returned 10
ives Before April l never asked for tho old GER
tfcates Of stock"
Robert T. Smith formerly clerk IN the Office Of
Ives g. Co.. was recalled to identify some more Of
Ives's handwriting and figures. 1t was when the
examination Of this witness was finished, and shortly
after recess that Colonel Fellows, who has seldom
taken an active part In the proceedings, arose ana
astonlshe1 all his hearers by remarknS The
Mr Brookes speech, in support Of his motion seek
ing the acqutal OF his client without more ado, was
weIIbpnf The reasons he said. that tho testl.
mony of Woodruff the accomplice a, 10 the issue Of
stock on June 2l 1856. had no. received the necessary
corroboraton that Woodruff mad testified that the
issue was made in Kings County, not in Network,
and that the case therefore without the junsdlc
tion Of this court that although office of the
c.. H. and d. road had been established In New-York,
there was nothing 10 show that the corporation IN
tended TO depart from the Jurisdiction of The State of
Ohio and issue stock here; and that, indeed when
Ives and his comrades left Ohio they ceased To be
officers of the company g. They cast thor official
robes aside. left them behind in CINCINNATI added
Mr.. Brooke Just exactly as the case Of the pros
ecution Is left behind in unknown region here >
when Mr.. Brooke closed his appeal Colonel Fellows
asked the Recorder: Does your Honor want TO hear
an argument Tie mOtiCIl"
"NO7 replied the Court. I'll let the case 90 10
the jury
morning for consultation.
Tue Recorder wanted TO know how long the case
would take
"Two or three days replied Mr.. Brooke. "Well
finish this week by sitting the ordinary session.
Al - said the Recorder. :" but shan't SIT the
ordinary Jon and the Jurors looked somewhat
glum ri this announcements his Honor told them that