New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-13
MP. BROOKE CHECKMATED.

Mr. Rrooke was solcitous to from the
witness an admission that the Mutual Life lnsur-
ance Company paying a conslderaoie par y.
the expenses this trial. but the Witness reIuseu
to make IT, He said. the contrary that al
though II had advanced some money TO bring VIII
nesses here from Chicago. II had done 50 only on
the order Of Mr.. Nicoll and that the only wiz
nesses whose expenses the company was paying
were two Of it's own employees Although MI
Brooke had industrously labored TO induce the
witness to say that the company had been thus
financially sustaining the prosecution, he resented
Mr. Wellman's question to whether the witness
had ever offered authorized anybody else 10 oner
money to Muller to testify in this trial; but the
Court allowed the question. and Mr. Gillette said
he had not.
MEYERS effort in assocating himself with his
wife, as the widow Of Baum, to collect the S,VoD
policy from the Mutual Life was further testified
10 by Thomas r. Meyer. the mortuary clerk of that
company The gentleman who supports this some
what creepy title. is young, but his eyes and
memory are good He had the defendant
and Mrs Never in the office OF the Mutual com
pany on April 5, 1892. and Mrs Meyer told him that
she was Mrs Baum. and She produced proof OF
the death of her alleged husband. When he began
TO put questions to her about her husband. Meyer
INTERVIEWED to say that she could not speak English
we'll Meyler did like the looks Of this fact, and
he sent them away telling them to again.
When they came again on April II, Meyer dis
playing a check that Mrs. Baum had received
from the Washington Life for the 5000 policy,
Meyler turned them over TO Mr.. Gillette
Thomas j. Mumford of No. 107 Broadway, the
manager in New-York of the Aetna Life, identi-
fed Never as the person who had called on him
with Mrs Meyer to collect the 5000 policy that
Baum held In that company. Meyers alias on this
occasion was William Reuter-, and Mrs Meyer was
again the widow Of Baum. They asked Tor blank
proofs of death, explaining that Baum the In
sured. had died. and the blanks were supplied to
thern They returned with the proofs two days
later and called twice thereafter TO inquire II he
had received from the home Office OF the company
at Hartford the check for the policy 1t mad not
arrived on the day OF their last visit though II
did almost Immediately afterward. But they never
came back again. a fact upon which the State
nlaces much Importance, for 1t was at this time
that they had become involved with the Mutual
Life and had found themselves the objects OF
Mr.. Giette's suspicion.
Meyer told MIR. Mumford that he was friend
of Baum the dead man. and Mrs. Baum that he
had happened to come TO NewYork at this time. and
had found the Baums in trouble, and had remained
until Baum died. and going TO remain
until Mrs. Baum settled up her business. Having
held the check for time to await their de-
mand for IT, and demand being received MI
Mumford returned IL TO the Hartford Office. MI
Brooke did not examine this witness. 1t was no
ticeable indeed, that he did not take the trouble
to examine the representatives Of any company
except the that had given its time and money
TO the discovery of Meyers offences. Mr.. Num-
ford's testimony with that of subsequent wit
nesses, was certainly burtful to Meyer in the
proof It afforded of his swndling operations as
was that Of Mr.. Gillette so that 1t was quite APP
parent that what made mr.. Gilette's evidence
offensive to Mr.. Brooke Was the fact that he had
served the cause of society effectively by bring
Ing Meyer to the bar Of justice.
MONEY WHICH MEYER GOT.
Cyrus Mum, OF No. q Cortlandt-st.. agent Of
the Washington Life who said he had been In the