New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-02-25
.PNOLD INQUIRY OPENED.
u,voNy ABOUT THE sURRoGATE's
APPRAISERS.

..o,n AND BUTLER ACCORDING To VIII
..,,ssrs INVARIABLY ovERcHARGED
FOR THEIR woRK-THE INVEsTl-
oAr,oN GOES on TO-DAY.
r..uous Investigating Committee, appointed
- sneaker OF the Assembly 10 cohuuc' II" u"
,ra,,on into the conduct oil business III ''o
VS. VS. - the Surrogate OF this county, oesa'i l's Il"
on'0 yesterday morning in the Trial Term room OF
Gun s,rr,satc's Court. at the County Courthouse
inc nors Of the committee are Edward II.
I"v v ~ New York chairman; Gherardl DAVIS
fa~ow-york; Merton f. Lewis. of Monroe' James
OF - - ~ Rroome Louis VI. Martin. OF Oneida;
- Z FYnn OF New-YOrk. and Patrick n
p- ~ Cbemung John Proctor Clarke appeared
n,s,i for the committee. Associated win MN
,,o,r, " Jessup and Samuel I. carter For
" ,roeks experts employed by Mr.. Clarke, acting
.absIf NJ the committee. have been investigating
"a Arnold's administration. Rumors OF I'M
s".1 dscoveries became rife. and about two
sA'V'' 600 SURROGATE J. H. V. Arnold resigned his
tIts -esie-nation caused the committee to re-
'H - Albany without holding the proposed pub
u w. but some revelations were made In
'...r,ent issued by Mr. Clarke. This connrmed
-. amor which had previously been made pub
w According 70 the counsel OF the committee.
~ ~. Ar,olds Office had been administered IN the
''..-ns, If the Surrogate and his relatives
aO,r IN fonNbNthlS INV ''''N'''N'@N'''
~ we begin today" said Chairman Fallows.
W. - sec,-e additional evidence 10 guide us In
,se1slstne on This matter
Tha committee has power from the Legislature
=. .su FOR Z. oks and papers from the SURROGATE
n.osnd % examine witnesses under oath. II VIII
=, ega,n to-day and on Monday. and 20 back 10
Albany Tue.1'Y ,,,,,,,.,
w. erst witness called yesterday was Wliilam D.
- q, expert. who identified schedule he had
ArnOl3S records showing
n~ ,,os ~ erp~aisers and special guardians ap-
$50 hv tfe Surrogate since 1894. and with the
Yo,n, ~ estate and amount OF fees. This sched-
=, ,,c,ufeS Only cases IN which such appraiser OF
-..-4,s, Uas one Of the following four men; John
p,,lAr Frederick Il. Chaplin. Thomas f. Arnold,
raar relative ~ the Surrogate and Henry I.
~. George " Judd another expert, testified
ne, IN the period between January l. 1894. and
,.-ra-y 4 1895. Butler was appointed appraiser
,e.o ,,roas Cbapin so times and Arnold and Hart
-. q, tor = liberal share Of the patronage. Mr.
"a eu,,ra -ha- there was nothing in the papers
=, rb,ch H. had been working to show the amount
=, ,bA fees received by the appraisers. That would
~. - Ne dug out Of other papers filed in another
oeo. and would be a work Of immense labor
AMOUNT PAID A COMPROMISE.
VI Cawson 81 the law firm Of Parsons. Shep-
.ra 4 ogden. testified that his firm paid Thomas
Avrol1
mn He wanted very much more and the amount
Ia uas a compromise Arnods work as APP
Ice, uas NOT heavy and did not occupy fifty
a.ys .o- which the legal fees would BE s. day, a
mai NJ $3.50 u was the custom Of his firm. the
u4,ness declared not 10 insist on limiting the ap-
nraisers charge 70 the legal fee This interested
the committee and they wanted 20 know why,
Nm, Mr. Cawson could only say that It was the
custom
Charles B Alexander. OF the Arm OF Alexander
4 Green swore that Butler and Arnold were ap-
noptaa inventory appraisers Of the estate OF Mary
Agnes Gordon who had been their client The
estate was s8Oo 1t easy 70 appraise the
work did not appear 70 be such as would occupy
more than day and tho appraisers after making
a long delay put in bill for $3.50 This was re-
duoe5 sfrerward 10 $50, each making AFFIDAVIT
that he had worked FOR thirty days at the ap-
praisal Mr. Aexander smiled when asked II ac-
cordirg TO the observation of his firm this work
was really performed. He judged that It was not.
He could not swear
Assemblyman Rogers-Have Messrs> Arnold and
Butler been Supported 10 appear before this com
nittee7
Mr. Jessup-We have subpenaed Arnold but
process servers have been unable to find Mr.. But
ier
In the matter Of the Mary Johnson estate. the
witness continued the same appraisers charged
and obtained $3.50 each. swearing that they had
performed hfty days work According 70 the wit
nesss Judgment the charge and claim were proba-
BY correct. Counsel for the committee remarked
that according 10 the affidavits fled by Arnold and
Butler they sometimes worked one thousand days
in the course Of year.
The appraisers In all those Surrogate cases
Of ours appointed by the Surrogate. Our
firm made no request for particular appraisers
sai3 Mr Alexander in answer 10 the question Of
Mr. Rogers.
J. Gordon Murray swore that Butler and Arnold
appointed by the Surrogate appraisers of the
estate OF Juliette Cicot. She left an estate OF
abou, $50 800 Of which was money in bank and
1s uncoected bills. The beneficiary under the
will was a helpless old mother. The witness
called on the appraisers and represented that the
mother was very poor and the estate very small
and the labor Of appraisers little. and ne would
Ike his client 70 get Of as lightly as possible. They
got so taxed by the Surrogate. having asked 80
each. The estate appraised al only $3.50.
Mr.. JessUI And $3.50 Of that was in bank. No
work 10 find that?
The wituess-They might have investigated
GAughurJ
Assemb.yman Finn-Did you appear before the
Surrogate and oppose the amount taxed by the
Surrogate for The appraisers fees?
Witness did not
Henry c. Waite, OF No. 81 Nassau-st.. testified
mar he had had experience with Butler and arnold
and Anna T. Parker who were drowned together.
There little labor Of appraisal" he said Il
objected 10 tho charge OF 500. I think that the
frst charge was much larger. but opposed 1t
and finally paid $500 We felt that the amount
was too hien but Mr.. Butler intimated that the
appraisers could make deal Of epense for the
estate BY putting expert accountants on the books
sao papers % the estate. pretending that such an
examination was necessary"
Ny Fnn-Dd YOU make a complaint 20 the Sur
ross'e when Butler threatened you in that man
nrt
me wines did not. knew II was no use.
Nr Finn-How could you know II use If
'Va never appealed 10 the Surrogate?
"Naess-I would have been quite unavaiing 10
pVest against these men ! know that from the
fot
AZ 'essup-Are Messrs Arnold and Butler com
appraisers In your judgment?
Tue Wine Judge they not. Butler told