New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-16
CORDAGE TRUST SECRETS.
SOME OF THEM TOLD IN COURT.
FORMER RooKKEEPER WHO AGREED TO TRADE
OFF HIS KNOWLEDGE FOR MONEY BRINGS
SUIT BECAUSE THE CASH WAS
NOT pAID.

NOT IAlD
4 suit which arises out Of the giving away OF
! some OF the secrets of the CoTdase trust was
brought to trial Yesterday before Judge Freedman
in +he Sunerior Court The action is brought in the
! name OF Nesbitt V. Davenport as the assignee oil
( his brother Joseph VI. Davenport. who Tor some
wears was confidential bookkeeper OF the Cordage
Trust at a salary OF sl,4OO year. against George
y Hume The amount involved In the action Is
$4,000 II Is declared that on April y. 49, whc
Davennor. was bookkeeper OF the trust. he entered
| into an agreement with Hume in consideration OF
a promise made By the latter to give him SZoV" anu
also TO sell him 500 shares OF the stock oil the
Cordaee Trust to reveal him all the inside facts
concerning the financial standing OF the trust Tor
four years and in fact to tell all the secrets OF the
corporation when would be Of great value to
Hulme in a financial way Davenport says that he
did this and gave the following list OF the diVdenhs
OF the company: March %. 1885 S23'.~D; september
g. 1889 $4,000 January 1891 100000; April j. lSJ
100000: April B. 1891. 100000; July l. 1891 $4,000; Mo-
vember l. 1891. $4,000 \ statement Of the pToht
and loss account OF the showed the total loss
Of the corporation to be S0l7s92 81. The accom-; Is
as follows: August !. 1884, to December 81 1884, proht
s2S7 3l3 57 January 1855 TO July D. is>s, loss i'-
44 49, August 1885 to July 81, 1889. profit $s2o9 81
August J, 1889 TO July 81. 1890 loss s.$'6 ~ The
slip Of paper containing these Items was handed
over to Hume two days after the contract was
made Now Davenport insists that inasmuch as he
carried his part Of the contract Hume should
be compelled 10 pay him the contract price for the
bargain.
The claim of Davenport Is disputed the ground
that the contract is an immoral on'. ana the out
come OF fraud and conspiracy. Moreover II is al
legged that he did not carry out the contract to the
letter. because the statement which he gave did not
contain a true account OF the financial standing OF
the Trust.
r. H. Landale and David Gerber are the counsel
for Davenport. and Assistant District Attorney
Weman represented Hulme. Joseph NJ. Daven-
port was cross-examined by Mr.. Weman He ad
mitted that he willing TO trade the secrets OF
the trust 70. a consideration. as he was aware OF
the fact that he would lose his position In the cor
poration. The fact also brought out that SUI
perintendent Byrnes had called the witness and
made efforts induce him TO not reveal the secrets
Of the trust he had contracted 10 do, but thai
he would not agree to this and declared that he
would keep to his contract.
Judge Freedman IN dismissing the complain: said
that il not material whether Davenport com
pleted the services demanded of him, or whether
the act which he agreed TO perform and the IN
formation which he agreed to furnish constituted
such offence would make him liable In a GRIM
inal action. The question was whether h. was en-
titled pccunidry profits for disclosing the
tract the making Of an agreement 10 commit
breach OF confidence. and to furnish facts which he
had right to disclose. Ii Involved a breach OF
trust. and was also against public policy. The law
VIII not allow betrayer OF confidential matters to
benefit by a breach Of trust.
The counsel FOR Davenport declared that the case
would be carried TO the Appellate Court