The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-01-19


sion here yesterday, at noon and ad-
journed to meet in Williamsport, Feb
II. Before adjourning a large numbe,
of orders and opinions were handed
down. among them a unanimous opin-
ion affirming the conviction in the
famous conspiracy case of George w
Koons against A. l.. Spencer and
Thomas F. Aubrey.
In this case, 1t will be remembered
Aubrey and Spencer who composed a
fake concern styled the Phoenix Con-
tract company, ordered a $4,000 con-
signment of nails from Koons, which
they disposed of at n price that con-
vinced jury that they never intended
to pay for them. 1t was shown also
that they were engaged quite generally
in this kind of work and that many
other shippers had dealt with the Phoe-
nix company to their sorrow.
Spencer and Aubrey We're tried in
the Luzerne criminal courts in the
spring of 1897 and convicted. a new
trial was asked for, but refused and on
June 80, Judge Bennett sentenced each
to pay a fine of 500 and undergo inn
prisonment i'm the county Jail for one
year. An appeal was taken to the
Suptllbi court ny ira II. buIllS, one VI
the defendants attorneys. Yesterday
when the appeal was dismissed, Mr.
Burns appealed the case to the Su-
preme court. thereby securing another
stay of sentence.
The opinion dismissing the appeal
was written by Judge Wickham. 1t is
an elaborate document and is very
spicy in parts, particularly where il
deals with the plans and purposes OF
the Phoenix Contract company.
SPENCER-AUBREY OPINION.
The substance of the opinion is as
follows
THE evidence in this case reveals the
philosophy and methods of one of the
dangerous forms of dishonesty peculiar
to modern business life" Referring to
that part of the evidence which told
of the attempt of the defendants tc
secure a rating of $4,000 in two COM
mercial agencies, when the evidence
showed that the assets or capital of the
Phoenix Contract company was ST., O0C
temporarily deposited in the Traders
National bank of this city. Judge
Wickham says that "a statement more
boldly and nakedly false was, perhaps
a mercantile agency"
A motion for new trial was made in
the court below. One of the main rea-
sons relied on being an affidavit made
by Turner after the trial that he did
not mean to say in his testimony that
Spencer had directed him to sell the ma
terial furnished by the Rooms firm. This
was not in accordance with his story told
the counsel for the commonwealth or his
testimony before the grand jury and the
traverse jury, which was undenied by
the defendants at the trial His deposi-
tion was taken to be used at the argu-
it that a month after the trial Spencer
had Turner go to Scranton. and after
talking to him secured the affidavit. Tn
fortunately for the defense.
Turner. on crOss-cXamination, was COM
PEELED in his deposition to explain the
affidavit, and his explanation when an
alyzed, seems 10 mean. to use his own
language, that Spencer did not actually
ana solely employ him to make the sales.
But even If we accept the affidavit as
true and meaning all that ii says, there
is sthl enough left in the circumstance.
the unassailed. the unrestricted testI-
mony of Turner, and the other evidence
justify the conviction.
OBJECTION NOT GOOD.
II is urged by the defense that The
commonwealth should not have been per-
mittcd TO go into the history and purposes
of the Phoenix Contract company. as by
so doing separate and indictable con-
spiracy to defraud the public AT large
was uncovered. For the same reason IL
might be objected in behalf of one in
dicted for killing or woundng another
with "a deadly weapon, that the common-
wealth should be debarred from prov
ing that the prisoner for weeks before
the commission of the crime had, con-
trary 10 our statutes. carried the weapon
concealed on his person with the deliber-
ate intention of using it against anyone
whom he might select from a class OF
persons.
In order to comprehend the nature and
circumstances of the particular conspir-
acy charged in the Indictment and the
motives and conduct of the two defend
ants. it was absolutely necessary 10 adj
init the evidence whereof complaint Is
made. Never in the history of English
or American jurisprudence was there a
time when an intelligent Judge would
have excluded il. The bogus company
was part of the juggling machinery Great
ed by the defendants 10 delude their vic
Tins. and was deliberately, skillfully and
successfully employed as a means or in
strument in deceiving Koons. Had II
iloN bcth So uSeu ny DOln ucIenudntS,
there could be no reason for their obiec-
tion. The case of Carroll and others
against Com, "a Pa, lS7, and kindred
authorities fully sustain the admissible
ity of the evidence, but even before these
cases were decided its relevancy could
not have been fairly questioned.
Coming now to direct consideration
OF the assignments of error we find that
the first fails to comply with rule Il OF
this court as it neither quotes the full
substance of the bill of exceptions, nor
copies the bill i'm immediate connection
with the assignment The offer of evi-
dence and the ruling thereon are given
but the evidence itself is neither set forth
nor incorporated by reference The sec.
ond assignment, at least so far as II re-
lates to the evidence outside OF the cer-
titcate therein mentioned, is open to the
same objection and the further one that
II even fails TO show the ruling of the
court on the offer. The letters referred
10 the fourth assignment, only one OF
which Is set forth or otherwise indiyid.
uated, were so far as we can see, offered
and admitted without objection, hence il
is unfair to the court below as well as
improper TO assign their admission as
error. The nth, sixth and eighth as.
sgnments complain of the refusal of the
court below 10 grant a new trial. No
exception was taken to this action OF
the court.
OTHER ASSIGNMENTS.
The other assignments relating to the
jurisdiction of the court and alleging IN
the charge cannot be sustained The
statement quoted from the charge in the