The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-04-19
SWEARING" ROPER
Two Suits Against His
Syndicate Heard in
Court Today.
JUDGMENT FOR ONE COMPLAINANT
He Had Given s66, Hoping to Be
Established in the Bakery
Business.

The First district court room was crowded
this morning when Judge Puster began to
call his calendar of cases. "Alban VS.. the
Mutual Building and Land Syndicate, cried
His Honor Counsellor Van Winkle replied
Ready" and then called the Courts atten-
tion to the remarks of o. W. Roper of the
syndicate criticizing Judge Puster's decision
in suit brought against the syndicate. The
case, like every other of the half dozen
suits against this shady syndicate, charged
fraud, and so clear was the proof that no
other decision could be reached by an up
right judge.
Roper, however, who was compelled at the
trial to admit that he is an ex-convict, was
deeply incensed at what he called Judge
Puster's biased decision, and the pious, moral
Mr. Roper declared that His Honors associa-
tions with building and loan associations
helped to decide against the noble, beautiful,
generous syndicate
These criticisms of the moral secretary
were brought to the Courts attention by
Mr., Van Wrinkle, who said ''the bar in
Are you the BARI" contemptuously
shifted ex-Judge Seymour of counsel for the
syndicate.
eyes, an honorable member of it," retorted
Mr.. Van Winkle, laying emphasis on the
word honorable"
Judge Puster, with becoming dignity,
passed aside the incident in a bland manner,
adding that he gave the decision without
any bias, but with due consideration Of
the law and facts in the case.
ToDAY'S CASE.
He then took up the trial of the second
case of the syndicate this week. The VIC
Tins this time are Mr.. Paul and Mrs.
Johanna Schick of Fifth street. Gutenberg,
and like all the others who have brought
suit against the syndicate, say that the con-
cern is fraud. The parties noticing the
alluring ''ads' of the syndicate, resolved to
of the syndicate. They wanted to buy a
house and asked Blumenthal, the famous
agent of the syndicate, whose transactions
are conveniently repudiated by that concern
when the victims kick how much the syndi-
cate could lend them.
Blumenthal said that if they paid down
1914. SO the syndicate would loan the $1,000
they wanted. The money was paid, but the
loan like the classic letter in the song, s'It
never came" When Mr.. and Mrs. Schick
complained about the delay in procuring
their loan, Treasurer, General Manager and
Secretary o. W. Roper said, ''Oh, this is 3
building and loan association. You must
wait twenty years until your shares ma
ture ~
These facts were sworn to by the COM
plain anus anu Un0n o4-JuQgo seymour aSkeu
for non-suit 1t being denied, Mr.. Seymour
began by saying that Blumenthal could not
be found, but he would call the Pooh Bah of
the syndicate, o. w. Roper.
That slick individual repeated what he has
always said that be never promised to make
a loan within any certain period, but on the
contrary the applicants were told to wait un-
til there was money enough in the syndicate's
treasury.
The case then closed and the suit of Alban
against the syndicate was taken up.
THE THIRD CASE.
Section No is William Alban of New
York The syndicate promised to buy him
bakery, first class bakery costing $4,000,
if he would only pay down 500 for expenses.
The same promises were made by Blum
enthal, and the money was paid. The
bakery didn't come along, and when Alban
asked him for his money the same old ex-
cuse was made, and ne found that he would
have to wait twenty years before his shares
would mature. Judge Puster took both
briefs
Judge Puster gave decision against the
company in the Bakery" case, wherein
William Alban accuses the syndicate of
making fraudulent representations and rop-
ing him out of S66.