The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-09
One Way to Bring the Criminal
End of the Suit Before the
Grand Jury.
A VERY CAUTIOUS INTERVIEW
M. w. FOX and w. T. Baggett Say 1t
Is Time for Some One Else to
Move.

cision sustaining the lower court in favor
OF NJ. W. Fox, a stakeholder in the Hale d
Norcross mining suit, who sued the own
ers of the mine for the recovery of certain
sums of money which the Supreme Court
says were secured from the stockholders by
fraud and corruption, the case has como to
a sudden standstill, and the plaintiff and
his attorney are waiting for some one to
begin a criminal move before the Grand
Jury.
eve have" said Mr.. Baggett the plain
tiff's attorney, succeeded in getting a
decision in which NJ. L. Levy and Alvinza
Hayward are found to be guilty of fraud
and conspiracy by the Supreme Court of
the State of California. l was warned not
TO proceed with this case, as the men in
VOWED were millionaires and it would be
impossible TO get a decision even if our
allegations were proved. l was not dis
posed to think that this State was beyond
delivering Justice to those who deserved it,
and, as you are aware, | moved in the
matter with all the capacity 1 possessed.
I proved. and the testimony is still extant,
that Levy Hobart, Hayward and several
others were combined in a scheme-partly
successful l might say-to defraud the
stockholders of the Hale & Norcross mine
out of their just dues and dividends. 1t is
not necessary to go over the entire case In
order to refresh the mind OF any one. Suf-
fee it to say that it has been in progress
since 1890 and that We have at last been
able to get decision in our favor.
''Mr. Fox was the only stakeholder who
ever put up a dollar to push the proceed
ings, and has never had financial assist
ance from any source. a II the expense
has been shouldered by him, and at this
juncture, or after the civil proceedings are
brought to a close, it is the duty OF the
Grand Jury, being cognizant OF the decls-
ion of the Supreme Court, TO proceed IN
the matter of taking up the case and con-
Guiding its criminal end. Ii any single
one of the members of the Grand Jury
should demand that the Hale & Norcross
case be taken up, and the 1ndlvld uals
found guilty of fraud be properly dealt
with it would have to be done, but 1t GER
tainly must be started, that is evident.
81 will even go further. Any stock
holder holding stock at the present time,
or even one who has held stock in the past,
can demand that the Grand Jury summon
the guilty ones, and enter into the testl-
mony of the case proving their guilt. 1t is
easily obtainable, and can be submitted IN
printed form. There is nothing lacking.
-
submitted to the Supreme Court is there,
the same evidence upon which the decis-
ion was rendered. I do not understand
why the Grand Jury has done nothing in
regard to it, nor why some stakeholder has
not taken steps to have the Hale d Nor
cross conspirators attended to.
1--WE will furnish all the testimony If
they desire it, and it is strong enough to
send them to the penitentiary."
GLOW does it happen, Mr.. Baggett,
inquired THE CALL representative.
THAT Evan Williams. superintendent OF
the Nevada Mill, was not mentioned in the
decision of the Supreme Court?"
'fWell, for the reason that he was merely
the tool used by the defendants to COM
plete their chicanery and fraud. He was
but one of the principals and is merely an
employee of the Hale 81 Norcross Company.
Senator John P. Jones was also one OF the
principals in our original suit, but it was
impossible to serve papers on him, and he,
together with Frank Newlands, head OF
the Sharon estate, was never brought into
the suit. Williams, however had nothing
to do with the case other than as an en-
plove of the company"
There is one thing" said Mr.. Fox, who
entered into the conversation here, "to
which | would like to call the attention OF
the Grand Jury, and it is the fact that the
popular belief regarding fraud being out
lawed is not altogether understood in this
community. The code says that fraud is
not outlawed until three years after it is
discovered. Now, mind you, this fraud
was not discovered until the Supreme
Court rendered its decision, and therefore
is not outlawed at the present time. The
decision was not rendered until the Sd of
August this present year, and it has to run
to 1898 before it is beyond the laws OF Cali
fornia.
eve are simply waiting to see what the
balance of the stockholders want to do.
have personally stood the expense up to
the present time, and landed the case in
favor of the stockholders. Mr.. Baggett,
nv attorney, has proved that millionaire
Is subject to the laws the same as any one
else, and if there is any other stockholder
who will finish the criminal end OF the
case would like to see him come forth
and begin at once. | understand that
Something of that kind is on foot, but do
not know the one who will take it upon
himself to handle the lob"
At the conclusion of the interview With
Mr.. Fox and Mr.. Baggett the CALL re-
porter heard that Senator Lynch had
purchased 1000 shares of Hale d Norcross
stock, and intended having the criminal
issue of the case brought before the Grand
Jury. This rumor was followed from
broker to broker, and finally run down to
the Senator, who, owing to his Grand jury
record of the past, has probably been sus-
pected as the man who was striving to get
at the seat of corruption. Mr.. Lynch was
found in his rooms at the Bohemian Cup,
and very cautiously confined himself to
the business of answering all questions put
to him in very guarded manner
e'Mr. Lynch, is it true that you pur-
chased 1000 shares of Hale Norcross
stock on the 9TH of August"
II decline to state whether or not pur-
chased such amounts of stock"
SIS it true that you have such stock IN
your possession &C the present time p
at is. Here are the certificates" Mr..
Lynch then threw them upon the table;
There were two certificates, No. 81, sos and
No. 4,507. Both were dated August and
were made out to jeremiah Lynch per-
sonally.
did you purchase this stock. Mr..
Lynch, for the purpose of becoming
stakeholder with the intention of bringing
the case before the Grand Jury?"
~ decline to answer that question"
''Is this stock for your
SIT may and it may not be. decline to
state regarding that point. 1t may be for
some one else. Who can tell?"
~ GU can"
eyes, but l won't. One of the common
est mistakes is to tell what you propose to
do before it is done. The result is generally
l.