New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-17
JOHN MULLINS ON TRIAL.
ACCUSED OF DEFRAUDING THE STATE
OF NEW-JERSEY.
HE HELPED FURNISH THE STATE HOUSE AT
TRENToN-TRYING TO KEEP THE BOOKS



OUT OF COURT.
Trenton. Oct 16-The trial of John Mullins. the
Jersey City furniture dealer indicted for conspiracy
defraud the State in connection with the sale OF
furniture. begun in the Mercer Court this fore
The indictment was one OF the results OF the
work OF the Senate Investigating Committee which
sat last winter and spring and made many reveia-
tions OF fraud. Judges Woodruff, Yard and Ap-
pegate are presiding at the trial. About an hour
consumed in getting jury. Mullins accom-
panied by several friends. appeared at the court
house early. His counsel are James B. Vreden-
burg ex-Judge William T. Hoffman. Judge Chaun-
cey Beasley and ex-senator William Edwards The
State is represented by Prosecutor Stockton and
Captain Woodbury. d. Hot.
In opening the case Prosecutor Stockton explained
the jury that the conspiracy OF Mullins was with
Bernard Ford. who superintendent OF the
State House. and who Is alsc under Indictment and
a fugitive from justice. Between June J. 1898 and
May 25. 1884, Mullins furnished to the State furni-
ture amounting to $3.50. 1t would be proved. said
the prosecutor, that he had agreement with
Ford, under which the latter received 10 per cent
OF the moneys paid by the State and that Mullins
overcharged the State 100 per cent for nearly all
the goods sold to 1t. 1t would be SHOWN also, he
said that many pages were torn out of Mnllinss
book to destroy, as far as possible. whatever evil
dence existeI of the preparation Of these frauds
Charles b. Cog. clerk in the Office of the
State Controller, the first witness. He pro-
duced the vouchers upon which Muhos got his
Frank Mullins. not relative Of the defendant
was next called by the State. He testified that ne
is bookkeeper for JohC Mullins. He had not
etc. which he had been subpoenaed to. on the
ground that they did not belong TO him The prose
cuton tried to elicit from him evidence based on
his knowledge Of what the books contained. bur the
defence objected TO this kind of testimony and was
sustained. Judge Woodruff ruei that the defence
could not be compelled to produce the books under
After recess the defendant Mullins, was put on
the stand and testified that he did not have the
the attorneys as to the production OF the be BOOKS Ks;
the books had been brought TO TreLton
The judges reserved decision as to the method OF
obtaining the books until tomorrow
whatever had been extracted, was allowed to leave
the stand. and Eugene Murphy was directed TO take
years. and It his evidence before the Senate
Committee that made clear the nature of his en-
ployers transactions with the State The witness
undertook 10 tell the same story OF bribery ana
fraud which he told before the Senate Committee,
but the many arguments between counsel broke rs
thread here and there and 1t was not given with
the clearness and coherency which startled the
State last Spring; His testimony was that While t
Superintendent of the State House. clamored fire.
quently for his ''divvy. Mullins had been selling
furniture TO the State through Ford. and the for
''dvvy" due to Ford The superintendent Mullins
told the witness. was TO have 10 per cert Of the
that the witness had that Ford and Mullins were
operating together in November 1890.
because it related to transactions ante:datns the
period mentioned In the indictment Witness was
Wha the books eontaned and N Muns
objected strenuously. The books had been ruled
they ,Ss a SO Se all
and the Court will decide the point in the morning
The general belief is that II the Court susans the
the up.