The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-03-05
Jury Gives VerdictAgainS
Steinert Co.
Full Amount Claimed Awarded
the Administrator.
Lawyer Cookies Closing Argument.
A New Trial to Be Asked.


by Warren b. Wesley, administrator Of the
estate of the late Cyrus G. Armstrong,
from the NJ. Steincrt & Sons Company
was concluded In the United States Dis
trict Court before Judge Aldrich last
evening. The jury retired shortly before
o'clock and returned with verdict for
the Armstrong estate in two hours They
awarded the full amount of the suit $3.50
to Warren B. Wesley, administrators.
Judge Cooke, in his argument, said a
strong man would not have acceded to
the demand of the Steinerts, but Mr..
Armstrong was not a strong man. He
reasoned that if ne did not do the work
one else would and he would lose profit
able employment. The testimony shows
that the business was profitable and that
the imitation of the accounts was not for
the purpose of defrauding the company,
but simply to show that the business was
that the Providence investment was a
good one. That was the key to the
situation. If true statements had
been rendered during the infan-
cy Of this concern it would not
have grown to the profitable proper
tions it subsequently did. Not one penny
of money was taken by Mr.. Armstrong
No money was taken by anybody. 1t is
quite evident the business was conducted
honestly and its honest conducting made
it profitable to more than so, 900 year
He paid special attention to the tcsti-
mony of several witnesses swho wore that
Edward Steinert had said that Cyrus G..
Armstrong had not taken cent. When
the system of bookkeeping was changed
from single to double entry, the young
Steinerts knew they would have TO make
good the difference between the inflated
and the actual account to their father un-
less they could find a scapegoat. They
found Cyrus Armstrong a ready victim
and every dollar went into the hands of
the Steinerts Armstrong never took a
penny as testified to by the resident man
ager of the Steinert company at the time.
Why should Alexander Steinert say to
anybody, 81 will have you arrested if you
tell anything about the Armstrong
business If Armstrong had taken the
money he ought to restore it, but the
Steinerts knew they had practically stolen
il from Armstrong. Henry l.. Steinert
had said that Morris Steinert, had said
that he could not see how they were en-
titled to Armstrong; money. Morris
Steinert was i'm court. Why was he not
put ON the stand to disprove what Henry
Steinert said? Because, gentlemen of the
jury, he knew that Henry was telling
the truth. This was after the alleged con-
fession of Armstrong in Boston. Why was
not Morris Steinert informed of the con-
fession? He would have known then that
he was entitled TO the money.
Everybody was keeping the books. III
Armstrong kept them all alone he might
be held responsible. Judge Cooke reviewed
the check business at the bank, the
method of doing business at the store and
the general laxity everywhere manifested
i'm the carrying on of this business.
Judge Aldrich in his charge to the jury
was remarkably clear and his instructions
rendered what at first appeared TO be
rather complex, very simple matter.
There were two things to consider. He
said. The plaintiff asserts that the defen-
dant has received money through the
Steinert company, which really belonged
TO the plaintiff. The writ was dated Feb.
26 1896, and the amount named was
$3.50 The first consideration was that of
hct aetin of
and IL that was found, then how much.
Another question was whether tho pay
mcnt was made under duress.
The Court charged that if it was found
that there had been funds distracted in
excess of the amount paid back the dcfen-
dant would be entitled to verdict
whether the payment was made under
duress or not If the amount was less
than the sum paid 10y Armstrong then
the jury must return "A verdict for the
plaintiff for the difference between the
sum abstractcd and the amount paid. He
urged the jurors to go over the testimony
carefully and examine the books for
themselves, and said they were not to be
governed by the deduction made by coun-
sci in their argument only so far as they
tended to enlighten them in regard to the
actual facts.
After the verdict was rendered Attor-
ney Miller asked for n stay of proceedings
and he was given six days To enter his
motion for n new trial, and 30 days upon
which to fllo his exc options.
----------