New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-11
ASKING HARD QUESTIONS.
THEY MAY COMPOUND MAYOR CHAPLIN.
ISSUES OF FACT TO BE SUBMITTED TO A JURY

ESTES OF FACT TO BE SUBMITTED TO \ JURY
IN THE BROOKLYN WATER SCANDAL CASE.
william J. Gaynor has framed issues Of fact which
he proposes to submit to jury in 'thc trial OF the
case brought by William Z!esler against Alfred G.
Chapin. Theodore f. Jackson and Thomas b. Rutan
to prevent the purchase Of the Long Island water
supply Company b. the city Of Brooklyn lie mas
issued a notice 20 the defendants that lie VIII move
AZ special Term on February "a that the issue be
ordered tried by jury.
Mr. Gaynor proposes fifty questions Of fact which
he wants jury 10 pass upon. The substance OF the
questions Is as follows; What was the actual value
OF the shares OF the stock Of the defendant company
and what the value of the plant on December ~
1902 We're they worth Sl2j000Ol Did staples
represent that the company had ffy and four-fths
miles of water mains. and il was the representation
true or falsel How many miles Of pipe did the
company havcl Did Staples represent that the plane
cost S5oO,O00T What was the actual value Of the
plant Was 1t represented that the companys legtl-
mate earnings for the year ending October |, 170O'
had been S65,530 81. and what we're the actual
legitimate earnings In the negotiations was It repre-
scned that the plant fitted to supply the present
and future population OF the Twenty sixth Ward. and
is it so fitted Was 1t stated that the gross receipts
could be doubled for small outlay Did the com
pany heretofore refuse to lay pipe necessary to supply
the population with waterl Did the defendant
officials conduct the negotiations In secret or with the
intention Of letting the citizens know abcut them
uEt the purchase was concluded II any Of thcso
representations were made and false. were they
made to deceive the officials did they, knowing
them to be false, act cOllusiveyl Did tho
company secretly and without paying for 1t
use the water OF the city at any time
within the eighteen months preceding the signing
Of the contract Did the defendant officials nccl ct
TO purchase until after the stock had been bought
by staples Did staple; have information not pos
se5scd By the officials and did he conceal it from
Them and we're they Influenced by the suppression
Did the company during the progress Of the negotia
tons $4,000 worth Of it, real estate to
withhold it from the city, and did the defendant
Official, know Of thu conveyance?
To these questions added inquiries in each case
as 10 whether the statement, hat may be found to
have been made true false; whether. II
false. they known by the officials of the company
to be false and whether they were intended to de-
ccve the officials,
Yesterday at 'rnoon Assistant Cooperation Counsel
Gilbert went before Justice Bartlett and made aft
davlt that II the motion were not argued before
February ~ the defendants would he injured.
Justice Bartlett therefore granted order that the
plalnH show carse on February ii why tie Qucs
ton OF trial by jury should not be argued then and
there.
~ new light has been thrown upon the papers
missing from the County Clerks Office. The DepIv
County Clerk. W. r. Rhodes. think, they have not
been stolen, but not fled. lie hold, thar The
record Of the motion paper. which cannot bee found
a mistaken record 'of the arbitrator, minutes. which
IN he Office with no record Of their rln- Dennis
Clare the clerk who He'd the pap'r' and made th"
record ia ls-5. ha, a dlhcren opinion l' saws
the paper ma kcd Arbitrator Minutes i not TIE
paper rcferr'c to n The record and also says thai
that paper which 'Irn- up wa never HE'D 81. a'
10 has not the word, which he pat upon all paper
lied. lie + positive that notion paper w, Iiled
IN The case Of tr'el AGAINST i.isa. and he show hat
him In other cases and showing his method ~ ndorng