Evening star., 1897-05-17
One Weeks Respite Given Mr.. Henry
0. Havemeyer.
JUDGE BRADLEY GRANTS CONTINUANCE
The SearIes Case Will Follow That
Of Mr.. Havemeyer.
INTEREST IN THE TRIALS

The trial of President Henry o. Have
| meyer of the American Sugar Refining
Company, indicted October l, 1894, for re-
fusinS to answer certain questions asked
him by the Senate sugar trust investigat-
ing committee, was set down by Judge
Bradley, today, in Criminal Court No. 2,
for Tuesday, the 25th instant.
District Attorney Davis had arranged to
try the case today, and when the court
| opened this morning the room was crowded
to its fullest extent by members of the
bar, witnesses, newspaper men and others
interested. Mr.. Davis explained to Judge
Bradley that he had notified counsel for
Mr. Havemeyer and the indicted secretary
! of the company, John E. Searles, that the
cases would be called for trial this norm
ing, but he understood that their counsel
desired a pos ostponement for a few Gays,
and he requested the attorneys for the de-
tense to state the grounds upon which
they based their request for such postpone
ment.
Mr.. Wilson is Heard.
Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson of counsel for the
defendants stated that he was informed,
Friday last, that his associate, Mr. John G.
Johnson OF the Philadelphia bar would
be unable to be present today, and he SO
>~- NAA' OA'iS, requesting d pOSCpO lement
or the trial for several days. Mr.. Davis
Would not consent to delay, and Mr. Wiisoi:
sald ne was, therefore, forced to ask the
court to grant the favor
Snortly after the Indictment of Mr.
HaVemeyer and Mr.. Searles said Mr.. vii
son. they made application for an early
tildl, put II was never granted, and since
tfen they had awaited the pleasure of the
geveTnment Mr. Wilson stated that it was
utterly impossible for Mr. johnson to he in
Washington at this time, owing to his
fhliadelphia engagements, and the appii-
catlon for postponement was therefore
mace In perfect good faith, and with no IN
tehlloh 10 unnecessarily delay the trial of
the cases. Va
Mr.. Davis Replies.
Replying to Mr.. Wilson, Mr.. Davis sai,,
ne very much disliked to object TO such an
apphcation, but he saw no good reason
why II should be granted. The indicted
parues mad demurred to the indictments
siioruy a1ter they were returned. The de.
t.usrer hals was overruled by Judge Cole, WHO
leio that there was simply a uuesrion of
iact 10 be determined. That is exnI,ineI
WI, laws, whether or not the defendants
had, as charged, refused to answer th.:
~ ~ es.nohs sn asked them. Mr.. Davis said tina,
50 Lar as the government was concerneJ II
"ouiu not require more than thirty mn
utes 1or Its side, and therefore he lid no,
Understand why the defendants shonIl ro
..friao ~. e Piesehce IN court of two such
irlgates OF the line as his broi bsr Hii
son, and Mr.. Johnson. However he yo',I,.
iea.e the matter with the court sugpAstine
!. .iiat II postponement should be eranfen
days. oe thdh lew
A Dissenting View,
Mr.. Wilson said that he did ro, s,.
expectations as to the probable
rfe'ity OF the proceedings or his opinion of
. n fha
me trlais, he remarked, will continue much
io4ser than Mr.. Davis seems to articinate
ior there Will be not only questions of fact
but many of law, to be Gisnosei NJ 49,
sd.u the reason Tor asking tor DELAY vas
,ot d Ihatter Oh convenience or counsel but
was was Hiade because OF Mr.. Johnson's pos
itiVe engagements elsewhere during ~,
week. 1nelr request, therefore. was not an
UNI easoEa able one, and he was quite willing
that the court should set the case dnw5
peremptorily tor tomorrow week, the 25th
LSeaht, promising that the defendants
Neuld then be ready and Willing tn nv,
tne trlais proceed. Mr.. Wilson stated thai
MS ni cHeiits would II compelled to be here
,hy, hhonuay, lose Sunday at home. and he
'h@felore suggested Tuesday week.
The Courts View.
Judge Bradley said that Mr. Wilson's re-
quest seemed to be very reasonable one.
Inc court had not the pleasure of a per-
sonal acquaintance with Mr.. johnson. but
knew him to be a very busy man. Tuesday
having been suggested as the most conyen-
lent DAY, the court would therefore. Set
MIR. Havemeyer's case down for trial ON
that day..
court. and after the witnesses hau been
called they were notified to be in attend
ahce 1uesuay, the 10Th instant, at 10 am.
Upon the conclusion of the Hayemeyer
vi a
the case against Mr.. Searles. This will
probably be followed by the trials Of
Messrs: Macartney and Seymour, those Of
the two newspaper men, Messrs. Shriyer
ard Edwards, 10 follow them.
An Appeal Certain.
Mr.. Davis expects to conclude all the
trials within months time If the de-
fer dants, or any of them, are convicted the
cases will undoubtedly be carried to the
Court of Appeals, and If the judgment of
the trial court be there sustained there is
little doubt that an effort will be made to
carry them to the United States Supreme
Court So in case of conviction of any of
the defende nts. 1t will probably be year
at least before the sentences imposed can
be eEfO1 ced.
While neither Mr.. Havemeyer nor Mr..
Searles was present in the court room
during today's proceedings, they were close
at hand In an adjoining room. 1t is under
ley granted a postponement of their cases
they left for New York.
Defendants Are Hopeful,
Despite the confidence expressed by Dis
trict Attorney Davis in his ability to secure
conviction, 1t is known that the attor-
neys for the sugar men are just as conf
dent that they will not be convicted, 1t Ia
understood that neither Mr. Havemeyer
nor Mr.. Searles will deny that they refused
to answer the questions asked them but
their counsel will, 1t is said, contend that
they were not questions which the commit
tee was authorized to ask, or inquiries the
indicted men were bound to answer In the
Chapman case Judge Cole told the iury
that the committee was authorized to ask
the questions put to him, and that II thew
believed that the questions testified to dur
ing the trial were identically or substan-
tally those he refused to answer a verdict
of guilty should be returned against him
In sentencing Mr.. Chapman Judge Cole
explained that he imposed the minimum
sentence because he did not regard ME-
Chapman as a criminal, and because his
was In the nature of test case The
judge also explained that the sentence i'm
posed upon Mr.. Chapman should not be
taken asa precedent, intimating that more
severe sentences would be imposed In the