New-York tribune., 1896-02-07
HELD FOR PERJURY.
LAWYER AND a PLAINTIFF IN TROUBLE.

OUTCOME or AN EFFORT TO GET SOME MONEY
DEPOSITED YEARS AGO IN a SAVINGS BANK.
William ID. Murphy. lawyer of No 152 West
Sixty-fourth-st.. and John j. Humphrey, of No.
l2l Nostrand-ave.. Brooklyn. were held In $1,000
ball each yesterday by Judge Dugro to await
the action Of the Grand Jury. This action was
taken after most remarkable trial had been
brought to 4 close. The case in question illus
trated the growth of money deposited in
ings banks. and the necessity for making
rangements for the disposal Cf such money If
the depositor has any idea that he might dis
appear and be unable to make collection in per-
son. 1t appears that there is now on deposit
IN the Bank for Savings Of New-YorN city
about $4,000 to the credit of Hugh Humphrey.
This amount has grown from original de-
posit Of s79 which was made in 1916 John J.
Humphrey now comes forward with claim
that he is the nephew Of the depositor. and
brings suit for the amount. He says that he
is the Of Thomas Humphrey. and that
Hugh Humphrey. his uncle died unmarried
To establish the identity Of the depositor and
connect him with the family. a Testament and
other books produced. in which the name
Of Hugh Humphrey was written. and the sigma
lures We're said to resemble the one on the
banks record. The man who brought the suit
and on the stand he testified that his mother
was dead. and that he knew of one sister. but
ne had no brother.
The other part Of the stO-y follows: William
u. Murphy. who his done much business in
pressing claims against banks for unclaimed
deposits, and gained his knowledge on that score
in 1862. when he counsel for committee
appointed by the Legislature 10 investigate how
much money of tha; kind was on deposit. took
steps to find claimant for the Hugh Humphrey
deposit. and with that end in view sent notices
TO all the members Of The Humphrey family.
Among others. George /. Humphrey, musical
director Of the Herald Square Theatre, received
notice. This was in November. 1894 Mr..
Humphrey called on Murphy, and then wrote -
his brother, A. G. Humphrey. who lives In Akron.
Ohio. and asked for some proof to establish the
claim. The proof came in the shape of some old
books In which the names John Humphrey and
Martha his wife" and also the name Of Hugh
Humphrey appeared written in n,. These books
We're taken t. Murphy. who KEPT them. and when
George l.. Humphrey asked for them he was told
that the signatures were not like those at the
bank and that another claimant had turned mp.
Murphy kept the books.
All this took place before the bank was sued
last spring by John J. Humphrey for the
Hugh Humphrey deposi-.
Georg, w Wickersham ana J. NJ Wainwright
Of the firm Of Strong & Cadwallader. No. S6
Wa-st. who at once put themselves In c,mmu-
nication with Humphreys all over the country.
and among the rest. George l.. Humphrey. He
called at the Office Of the law firm and found.
to his astonishment. tha. the very books which
j. j. Humphrey had placed in evidence g fortify
his claim the ones which he left with
Murphy.
Mr.. Humphrey wanted to make claim for his
books bn; was advised instead to 'lay low and
await developments. These came yesterday at
the hearing Of tie case before Judge Dugro
When the books were placed in evidence II was
found that signatures oF Hugh Humphrey.
in pencil were found. which George l.. Humphrey
swore wera not in the books when he gave them
Then the counsel for the bank furnished an
other surprise by calling Mrs Catherine
Humphrey who said she came from Boston.
There was a decided resemblance between her
and the claimant. She said she was the mother
OF eight children, and that the Oldest Of them
a son. thirty-eight years Old she had not
seen lin nineteen years. John Humphrey vas
brought face to face with the witness. but she
would not that he was her son. George
l.. Humphrey and his brother testified To the
ownership Of the books. The percil signatures
in the books were pronounced forgeries by
David y. CarvalhO while another expert, ID. l.
Ames said that they might have been written
by the same person who signed the bank regis
ter. The claimants counsel. John =. Burke
| a hopeless one for he asked the Court 20 be
| allowed to withdraw juror, and thereby end
the case but Judge Dugro promptly refused 70
grant the request.
In his summing up Nh Wickcrsham spoke OF
the claim as ar absolute fraud. The Judge
charged briefly, and to The point. ana. after an
| absence from the courtroom Of about fifteen
minutes. the jury returned verdict Tor the
bank.
At $50 p n Justice Dugro entered an order In
! which he stated that II appearing that William
| D. Murphy had sworn that he obtained certain
| book from the plaintiff In the action. whereas n"
had in reality received tho book from George
| l.. Humphrey, and it alsc appearing that J0hn
| James Humphrey. the plaintiff had sworn that
| the book was In his possession since 1879. having
| been given to him by his father when In reality
! the book had beer obtained from Murphy, ana
! by him from George l.. Humphrey, both John
| J. Humphrey and William ID. Murphy be re-
! qured TO enter their recognizances In the sum
| of s. 900 each. to answer to the charge OF per
jury. ,,
! Immediately on the entry Of the ord'r, PONCE
man Degann, Of the court squad took the TWO
prisoners the TOinbs