New-York tribune., 1900-01-23
FX-GOV. WALLER ACCUSED.
CHARGES OF FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
N SUIT NOW on TRIAL.

In q suit now On trial before Justice Bischoff in
,re Supreme Court, Thomas NJ Waller formerly
Governor of Connecticut is charged with fraud and
conspiracy. The trial was begun yesterday The
complainant is Joseph ". Pullar OF No 162 West
N5nerv-sixth-si. He is seeking the anuunent OF
g contract ard deed by which he conveyed property
zaIred a. $4,000 to Ex-Governor Waller and Alfred
? Page Mr.. PuIlar asserts in his complaint that
-he conveyance vas executed while he under
re influence Of alcoholic stimulants and did not
know what he was doing He asserts that he did
rot know of the transaction until months after
ward and that be was compelled and induced to
sgn the papers. At the time OF transaction Pullar
SAYS that Mr. Page was his attorney.
The case IS a most complicated one. In his COM
piaiut NJ Pullsr asserts that the night OF Oc-
toher Il 1907 he was taken 70 the Imperial Hotel.
il this city by Mr. Walters Law partner. s. Harri
scn Wagner and there under threats Of prosecu-
ticn for bigamy frightened into signing away his
interest in an estate beQueathed him by his
wife. Johannah Fuliar, who died in Stamford.
Conn. three years ago. Mr.. Pullar charges that
his lawyer Mr Page. was il conspiracy with Mr..
Waller. and that by reason OF the excessive use
Of stinulants MS mind was so enfeebied that he
vas incapable of thinking acting for his best in
Ie-ests He asserts that he signed the instruments
the advice OF Br. Page
The viii was admitted 10 probate on September
10, 1896 Subsequently. legal proceedings were
threatened and Il asserted that Pullar had eX-
erted undue influence in procuring the execution
Cr the VIII As result the property HdS tc4 Up
and PuIlar was opposed in the legal proceedings
ty the other heirs It was in connection with the
legal proceedings that PGilar went 10 the Imperial
Hotel OF The night in question. The deed and con-
veyance included ali Of the plaintiffs rights. title
and interest in certain Chicago property. The con-
vevance was made 70 Waller and Page
The defence asserts that the proceeding was
straight and regular. and that Puar simply signed
The property over 10 them in order that they might
protect hin IN legal proceedings over the estate
RI ~,l-r e-r@.
courts II the condition the estate was in prior 10
the contract Pull2r would have lost nearly all the
property. BUT che settlement under the contract
Dec,-SeTtsTv eEifer5c IN reesrd TO the will and
the contract was Iut in evidence at the opening
of the case, and then James T. Farren. OF Hart
ford. Conn. called BY the plaintiff, although ne
is defendant, vas called He examined as 20
and then told about the conference at the I'm
perial, AZ which he was present
o-There was no appearance. that YOU saw. Of
anxiety OF distress on the part OF Pullar? A--NC.
Q-He didn't seem 70 regard anybody as an
Q.-And he made no protests? A--No.
The alleged blgamy Of the, plaintiff was touched
On n the afternoon the plaintiff attempting TO
Used IN setting him 70 agree 10 the contract in the
The witness said that he had found. on inouirtng
-rou2d about FL-lar win a detective. thai he had
The first question 1 asked her whether she
had zOt divorce from Pular She said she hadn't.
J asked her If she knew he was married She
hao no. seen him for some tine He was leaving
- week for her aI some cigar stand downtown
Odd you give % her Waller & Wagner's ad-
dress and suggest that she ought 20 go down and
Sc them2 A-Yes. She came up 10 Hartford Of
her own account one time and wanted US to come
down and have PUllar arrested. That was on
October p
Q-Beiore the contract was signed? A-No,
after i signed
Q-Did you comply with her request? A-No.
We never proposed 10 have him arrested for
bigamy-
M .Ben5aam!5n anis he'd with the witness for the
plaintiff and the court adjourned till this morning.