Telegram-herald., 1890-10-10
ANOTHER ROORBACk
Mr.. Turner's Answer 10 the Rail
road Bon1 Mztter.
he DID WHsI be HaD 4 RIGHT 10 Do
re osasa ths Eonas- s'rea.issat Dsaas-
erzss Csnas - dls D~EsHss-A Protest
ASztast affair Assaults IA
tssrity tai0pSaehSa.


upon Hon. james N. Turner made IA
Wednss sass's Free Press wzs prepared
several days ago, i having become
known that saen move was eOUtem-
plated oy the Democratic organ:
Tne undeFs gned have been advised
that it Z contemplated BY certain news
papers and politicians 90 attack Hon.
James NJ. Turner, claiming thai GER
ran suit IN chancery, Ia which the Chi
cagO 4 Grand Trunk Railway Company
was A party, has been decided by the
Supreme Court upon grounds that re-
tiect upon MT. Turner'S integrity. Hsv-
ing been connected with the case as
counsel, ia lts several stages, We submit
the following statement ia justice 10 Mr..
Turner;
liz j. of course impractlcabletO 10 scuss
satisfactorily Il case involving a iafge
amount or testimony Ia a brief state
ments nor IS that necessary 20 Mr.. Iur-
neT's ) y.ndlcatl0n. But enough eau be
conveniently set forth herein 10 enable
the general public 10 understand the
case snd 70 perceive that any attempted
use OF II 20 prejudice Mr. Turner would
be great injustice 20 him and an out
rage upon fair political discussion.
In 1873 Mr.. Turner was the owner of
certain bonds OF the Chicago * North
eastern Railway Company, OF winch he
was one OF the original promoters and
lncOrporators. lie became its presi-
dent and uperintendent, aided IN the
construction OF the road from Lansing
to Flint, invested largely IN It's stock
aud bonds, owning 4 large majority
thereof, and for long period had the
general management and control of the
affairs of the company and It's railroad.
| In January, 1873, Mr.. Turner sold out
| right 10 William III. Vanderbilt l70 of
the bonds OF the company, with large
amount OF the stock, and also gave TO
Vanderbilt 4 privilege of purchasing
$50 more of the bonds of the company
up 10 January, 1879. OF these 250
bonds, OF course, Mr.. Turner remained
the owner. On April 4, 1878, Mr.. Tur-
neT sold absolutely TO Russell Sage these
250 bonds, subject 10 Vanderbilt's prlvl-
| lege 10 buy them before January. 1879.
Upon these bonds, coupons for inter-
est were due March, 1873. These
coupons were ali cut off when the bonds
were sold to Sage.
|
cut the coupons from these bonds, and
transferred them as gift TO Mrs. Tur-
ner. AS he was the owner of them at
the time, ms right TO do so was clear.
Subsequently, in January, 1879, Van
derbilt exercised his privilege under his
contract with Turner and purchased
these 250 bonds of Sage. Vanderbilt
then being the owner of 1880, all the
bonds of the company 81 ,250, 900, sold
l,lO0 of them 81 ,l0O,000) to Joseph
IIickson, who afterward sold them to
the Chicago * Grand Trunk Railway
Co., Hickson having purchased the
bonds of Vanderbilt IN the interest of
this company.
Up to this point the facts are undis-
puted, and all OF them are found as
facts 10y the decision of the supreme
court.
In February, 1885, Mrs. Turner, the
owner of the interest coupons above
mentioned, having been unable to
obtain payment thereof, to which she
was entitled, began a suit for them
against the Chicago & Grand Trunk
Railway Co., in the Ingham circuit
court. The relations between Mr..
Turner and the company, formerly
| friendly, had become strained. There
upon the company began Il suit in
cbaucerv, in the same clrcit, to enjorn
Mrs. Turner's suit at law, and this chan
Gerry suit, appealed to and decided by
the supreme court, is the one IN which
the decision in question WAS made.
The clam of the company was that
the $50 bonds had been pledged by Tur-
ncr to Sage, as collateral security, and
that while thus held by Sage, Turner
sold them to Vanderbilt, and that the
interest coupons gwen to Mrs. Turner
were left with Sage by mistake, and not
delivered to Vanderbilt, and that Tur-
ner afterward conceived the idea of
collecting them.
Upon this, which, if supported by evi-
dence, might involve Mr. Turner'S IN
tegrty, the case utterly broke down.
Sage's testimony was emphatic that
these bonds were never pledged TO him
bit sold 70 him absolutely, Aprii 4, 1873; that
fbe coupons Of March, 1873, ,rere not at
tucted: that he Sage did not b,y or receir,
the coupons. Apd the decision Of the Sgprem,
Court fpds that these bonds ucre not pledged
5,a sold 10 Sage April 4, 1878; that IN
March, 1878, uhile Turner wos the ocna
Of the coupons, he cm them of. as he had
the right to do, and he had the right
after cutting them of, 20 sell or give
them to Mrs. Turner or any one else, a:
he pleased.
The chancery case went to a hearing
II the Ingham circuit, upon large
amount OF testimony. and was decided
by Judge Erastus Peck, upon full con
sideration, in favor of Mr.. Turner
Thereupon the company appealed.
It's true that upon the hearing in the
Supreme Court the decision OF the cOur'
below was reversed. and Mrs. Turner
suit upon the coupons was perpetuallS
/ cnIoned. Il is also true that il IS no
our purpose TO enter into 4 q scussion of
the merits Of that decision. That wOulc
be inconsistent with our respect for tn,
supreme Court, and OF the relations o.
counsel to L. even when they arc dissp
pointed in Is decisions.
But it's open for u 20 say. with Dro
pristy, that an analysis Of the decision
shows that the grounds upon which th'
court place their judgment do not jos
/ tifg. but Tepel any charge Of frau'
upon Mr. Turner. Their grounds we're
in substance 90 That when Mr. Tar
ner cut OF the coupons he intended 9,
cancsl them. Upon this question. oi
the whole evidence. Wh1le faiT-m nde,
men might conclude one wav or th
other. We sh'ng the ev dcnce shovel
clearly that Mr. Turner lid not Inten'
to cancel them. but whether he DID o
NOS the court find that he did not can
Gel them, bat gave them g. Mrs. Iug
ner. az he bad right 70 do. The suV
posed cancellation of the coupons
the prnclpal ground Of the court