The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-04-24
ROPER GUILTY.
In Getting Rich Too Quick
He Fraudulently Used
the Mails.
NO INTENTION OF PAYING
His Contracts Were Made
When He Had No Money
to Back Them.

Especial to "The Jersey City News."1
TRENTON, April "A. 1sOO.-The trial of
Osmer W Roper, of Newark, charged
with using the mails to defraud, was con-
cluded in the United States Court yester-
day and the jury brought in a verdict of
guilty.
The case went to the jury at Ais o'clock,
and the verdict was returned at six
o'clock, Clerk Brandt taking it. The first
vote was 10 to for conviction.
There are four other indictments against
Roper charging him with the same offense,
| but in sending letters to others. The jury
was dismissed until tomorrow morning,
when it is expected another Indictment
will be moved.
| The beginning of the trial yesterday
morning was delayed an hour, the Judge
having bankruptcy cases to consider.
The District Attorney offered number
of books and papers and examined one
| them.
| Hilton, who was Roper's bookkeeper,
| told how he had to force a balance by
charging up to Roper the difference be-
| tween the cash in bank and the cash
showing by the books.
He said, in cross-examination, that the
amounts SO charged never exceeded the
amount due Roper on his $1,000 a year
salary. In fact, the amount due increas-
ed so rapidly that he finally suggested
to Roper reduction in salary to $100
a month until the company caught up.
Mr.. Roper agreed to this.
When the government closed its case,
MIR. Bradner asked the Judge to instruct
the jury to acquit his client on the
ground that the indictment was fatally
defective, and on the further ground that
there was no proof that the company did
not intend to make a loan. Mr.. Laird
made bid or two and got none, but
that was all. He never tried to get his
money back.
Judge kirkpatrick refused the request
because the jury should decide whether
there was bona fide intention to make
loans. The evidence was when Mr.
Laird bid, there was always reported a
higher bidder. yet it was shown by the
books that not Iona had been made
Mr.. Roper was not put on the stand in
his own defense. His counsel said he
would rely chiefly ON the books which the
bookkeeper said he was never told by
Roper to doctor in any way He would
also show that Roper had legal advice
before he went into the business, indicat-
ing his desire to do the right thing
Herbert Boggs, Newark's new City At
torney, was called to tell of conference
in which he had a part, but not as paid
counsel, with Roper and William H. Con
over, a Newark lawyer now deceased
The talk was about the kind of company
which must be Incorporated to do a
building and loan business. What was
said he could not remember
Lewis Aft, who drew up legal papers
for Roper, was summoned and testified to
their genuineness, and the papers were
presented to show that the trust fund
was really doing some business.
F. G. Skellinger, of East Orange, testi-
fed that in September or October. 1899
he went to Scranton to appraise a prop
erty for Roper, wins promised to send
him South and West later. Whether or
not Roper was arrested too soon, or why
this trip was never made, did not ap-
pear.
Edward s. Steinler, an incorporation of
both companies, was asked if Roper ever
said or intimated, to him that no return
was to be made to customers for the pay
ments made by them.
The question was disallowed by the
Judge who said that Roper's intentions
could not be told in that way.
In summing up, Mr.. Bradner explained
why he had not called his client. He said
that 1.-THE poor, miserable man" had been
in Jail since last December and was in
no condition to stand the ordeal of a
ross-examination on the witness stand
He would rely on the books Had fraud
been intended there would have been
none There were no books found with
Miller, the Brooklyn man convicted of a
get-rich-quick scheme.
Judge Kirkpatrick, in his charge to the
Jury. explained clearly of what the offense
for which Roper was indicted consisted
No fraud was necessary, but only the use
of the mails for the purpose of defraud-
ing
If the companies had the ability and the
intention to loan money and to carry out
the contracts yRtered into then Roper
must be acquitted. He could not hide him
self behind the legal Incorporation of his
companies. If there was fraud in the con-
ception of the companies, then all con-
nected with them were guilty.