New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-09-15
AWFUL EXPOSURE OF MOSS.

CROKER RAKEs THE PAST TO FIND BLOT o.
THE LAWYERS RECORD.
A, tho hearing Of the Mazet Investigating Com
mittoe yesterday Richard Croker gave OUT '"e .o-
lowing statement to the reporters after te'lhe MI
Moss that he was going to expose his character
The following is an extract from '4 Frsf beDsrt
ne 0Ds,t tbo case of the People vs. Schooey, re-
ported f. the S, Huns Reports pages @95 TO 0''
in Np.enbor 1900 four bonds of the s. Louis and
Iron Moun,1" nrerty Of Ellen NJ Cay were
sto'st rom her possession in Washington. ID g,
I'm August OF the following year these bonus .
fal.iaG hv the obterat0n Of certain indorse mehts
thereon AZ the tine or me tlv'mS, ,',n,ors on
IN" pehuS '.hu ,,era I'm the possession of the
HIofen V and disposed Of by him under crcum-
oand es T knowledge his part that they
one Of the bonds the defendant sold to ts s a f6p
U.bicb he received a check Of the firm for SV52.
one Of the firm won't with nm TO tae pa"H WA bi
W." u,hich tbev returned to the office Of Walsh
4 Son. and defendant handed back TO the nrm SiS9
i,ert Of his by tho name Of Peterson. who owned
m, h0ra Peterson was not plOiH''i ulvl. ~
trial nor wa his absence satisfactorily account
one of the notaries. Mr.. Frank Moss testified
mat This defendant came to him with another man
whom he introduced joel Peterson ana ro91esr-
ed him to witness his sigma IT. 9,n ,"Ns sd tbs
man called Peterson before. but did konw me de-
PENDANT and that on the faith or ne in1roopc(ion
eds m''i'' Hy tSsmony fa as IT. related 70 the
snI1s ,o Of the Sa p"p p. fo ToSn ne "'
l. YOUR best recollection that that paper
wss 5 Not 4R Rnk i ascd his man if he desired
10 witness his signature when ulurlSo""N ~ ~
YOU had not seen it signed? A.-No wouldn't
* Ry ''' juror Mr. Moss do YOU say that you saw
this man Peterson sign that A.-No' dldh say
"t' is cinar ' that Mr. MOSES testimony did not
establish either that the alleged rStc[STnd sge or
{hS p dSfcndaut did not M
concur in the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Jus
fce Parker but It does not seem TO me that tho
fragrant violation Of duty by the notarles VINO LOON
offered in evidence I'm this case should pass with
out notice In fact they should be proceeded
Two powers Of attorney were offered in evidence
claiming TO have been executed on the lith and
notary certified that the persons purportins to
execute tho power Of attorney We're personally
known to each notary; and the evidence. as given
by the notaries. shows that they nad never seen
such person prior 10 the time OF the alleged ac-
ACCOMPLISHMENTS and hSt the only gyidence 81 iaen,
at least ~ the notarios was not even per,
sonally known II would appear rom me rcSSoI rl
notaries TO certify 10 personal knowledge OF the
identity Of person executing paper from an
Tee is a ciear violation OF the provisions Of tho
statute. and renders the notary liable 20 prosecu-
ton
Many other cases might he cited establishing the
proposition that mere personal introduction AT The
tire % the execution OF an instrument Is not the
evidence which the statute requires. and that ii is
violation OF duty upon TIE pari Of an officer. max
Ing him liable to punishment. TO take an acknowl-
edgment under such circumstances.
Al the close Of tho morning session Mr. Moss
laughed heartily whom asked - he not worried
when Mr. Croker handed out his statement NO"
he said. II was tempted 20 make report with 81
reflection on tho character Of his associates but
] changed my mind. and I'm glad did. / suppose
no gave ont statement about that notary public
AFFAIR but he didn't even have the courtesy % hand
copy. I'm sorry FOR the incident watch gave
rise 20 the story. but il night have happened to
any notary"