New-York tribune., 1900-05-08
r.nor, intending that II should be printed and cir
l ha canc,lrred IN ha matter and WaS

report Intending that It should be printed and cir
ouIated he concurred in the matter ana was
guilty.
Magistrate zeller interposed that the law was
clear. 1T says. he said written report ana u'a'
can't mean oral one"
Mr. Hymes said: IF / give statement TO a re-
porter knowing that 1t will be printed in news
paper. am l not concurring in a report? A report
in this way reaches the stockholders and others
Magistrate Zeller interposed again. saying that
unless he could be satisfied that a written report
made. in which the defendant concurred ne
would dismiss the complaint. Mr.. Hymes insisted
that he would show that the article in The New
York Herald" duplicate or copy of an article
In "The Chicago Record
Did you on April 1S have any talk with Gates
to what paper the interview was TO be printed
n?' asked of the witness
The witness answered in the negative. and when
asked how the article got into The Herald" said
that ne did not know. He was questioned as to his
notes. and said that he never took any.
Mr.. Nioor here declared that the proceedings had
become a travesty upon justice. These gentle
men" he said have sworn that they had a writ
ten report-that they knew there was written
whether there was a written report or not. Now I
protest in the name of justice against the proceed
ing continuing in the way it has.
The objection sustained, and the witness was
Mr NicoIl declared that the whole case hinged
the proving that there was a written report CON
and the witness had declared that the defendant
refused to speak regarding the company -
the directory Of the American Steel and Wire Com
ned as a balance sheet of the American Steel and
Wire Company paper which was m named e MN nm.
ness of the company except what was told him by
Max pam counsel for Abbott and Gates ad-
mitted having known Mr. Seigman year or a1 more e
April that the latter was in the city. He said that
any conversation he had with segman with refer
ence Mr.. Gates without any particular
Frederick strauss testified that he had office
at RrOad-St. He said he ceased 10 De a
director in the American Steel and Wire Company ~
the company now. as compared win its condition
previous to April H. He eton ina1 'Re Mas not
so favorable as it had been
president of the Federal Steel c9mpa9y and bad had
been since October Ii @ e between tRat the
Steel Company and as hs fa9ed to ask
questions regarding the condition of the steel and
wire business: on the ground that Mr Gary was
Nj Nieoi refused question any Of the .o7cn, %it,
nesses, Adjournment was then taken to IL O'Clock
Georgs Alfred Lamb. the complainant against
answer to the points raised by De Lancey Ncoll
counsel for Gates at the hearing saturday IN part
The complairt In this case has been formulated
under Section Sill subdivision 8. OF the Penal Code
corrsct then a director or officer OF corporation
in the position of this defendant can shield him
fence the absence Of suthory in maGpg 1nf snd
or statement which forms the sup]eTe Tead r. Would
be if the defendant might be prosecuted under TINS
section of the code if acting authorltatlNey @ anu
vet on the other hand provide himself with per
feet defence by showing that the report or Wnlcn
he is the author is only false. but the proouc
Of his own design unabetted and uncOnnived at by
those whose confidence he has abused as, ,.
Section 49, enaCts that "a person VITO Win oIrs
to affect the market price . or the ~ ~slocnS
bonds other evidences or deot OF a cor I.ota
ton knowingly circulates any ia false Sc s'afe ans
ment rumor intelligence, is pie oy me me
of not more than S5o00 by imprisonnent LOT not
more than three years both tSubdivison 81
The allegations of the complaint before TINS court
a. this Section of the code perfectly. and under IT
make out complete case, against which no
criticism can be levelled.