New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-25
AUCTION CASES IN COURT.
DECISION RESERVED BY MAGISTRATE CRANE IN
THE CHARGES AGAINST LINDEN
ROPN & KREIsER.

The scene OF the fight between the Association for
the Suppression Of Fraudulent Auctions ana Inc Two
ouctioneers David Lindenborn OF West Iweh'e'h-
st and Samuel Kreiser. Of West Twenty-eiGhth-s'''
was transferred from the Mayors ONCE 10 1e"erso"
Market Court yesterday afternoon, when the law
,ers renresenting the association asked that the
.u,o ouct,oneers be dealt with being guilty or
misdemeanor in having exaggerated the vaIue OF he
goods they offered for sale. in VOCATION Oh 9ecoii
gs2 OF the Consolidation Act. Charles scrioner ana
Charles Smith appeared for the association whe
Mr. Hrsch Of Bumenstie & Hrsch appeared Tor
LAndenborn, and krelser was TeP'eSe"''' ~ '
Fromme.
lanes T. Robinson a clerk for w & j. Sloane.
was the first witness called. He testified That ne
had called at Lindcnborn's auction rooms on Har'h
G. and had bid on two rugs lie sald tha' ON Vi
these was a Cashmere rug. which the auctioneer SAID
was worth fully 800 and probably could not be
bought for that price In a retail store. He had
bought the rug for s25. and said that ne thouSht IL
was worth s35. He said he had bought the rug
merely for the purpose Of securing evidence and not
for his personal use
Mr. H,rsch maintained that In that case he was
not defrauded In any way. as he had received rug
for which he had paid less than he had valued 1t at
Mr. Scribner retortcd that the statute made IT
nisdemeanor for man to give fraudulent repre-
sensations Of any article that he was auctionhg'
Mr. Hirsch said that he did not believe any auction
sale had ever been conducted when the auctioncer
was true in retail stores Leroy Andrews. manager
OF the association, the next witness. He said
that he had been formerly In the rug business ana
that he thought that The Cashmere rug Mr. Linden
born had said was worth $lJO. was not worth more
than 800 and that he had sold rugs equally as good
for $22. -, -,
size of 9IOx6ll?" asked Mr.. Hirsch
The witness replied that he thought Cashmere
rug of that size would be worth fully sS2
Mr.. Hirsch trunphanty declared mat mat was
the exact size Of the rug that he had said was
worth from $Z2 to $780, and asked him how he recon
ciIed the two statements. Mr.. Andrews said that
he would like examine the rug again. The rug
WAS unfolded and after examining II he said that
The prosecution then announced that II rested It's
case Mr.. Hrsch moved to dismiss on the ground
that the was not proved, bI; the Magistrate
I'D that he would reserve his decision that
morton Mr. Hirsch then fled brief. and two days
were allowed the other side 10 prepare their brief.
The decision on the motion will be given at latter
date Mr. Hrsch reserved the right To produce wit
nesses for the defence at a later date II the de-
rision of the Magistrate against his clients.
;rhe case against kreiser was then taken up. Rob
,nson was the first witness He swore that he had
hought two rugs from kreiser, one for ss 30. which
he said that kreser said was worth so, and the
n,bar for 500 which Kreser said was worth go He
Ga id that rugs In reality worth only $5 and
'rhe witnesses who had testified in the other
olso testified In this case and all corroboraed Rob-
Moons testimony. Mr.. Andrews said that the
smaller rug which Kreiser had said was worth $50.
was defective. 1t had three holes in It. He held
the rug up the light 50 that the Magistrate cou
see the hoes - s ,-,, i, 49,,
also under the same conditions.