New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-26
TIGER ESCAPES JUSTICE
EGAN CASE ADJOURNED.
Forgery Charged IN Connection sritb
Getting Cheap Pier Rental.


C1'sulivsn that family bereavernents had caused
T Sergeant Cram. former president OF the Dock
Bosr5. 70 absent himself in Europe. put the
joseph Egan case over until the January term
This adjournment, in The opinion Of those who
have watched the course Of the old Dock Board
scandals closely. marks the close Of the city's
attempts 70 prosecute the men who. by alleged
conspiracy ana fraud. secured from the old
Dock Board leases Of water front privileges IT
TidiculoUsly low rentals.
After January ] Tarnu1any Corporation
Counsel vii be in charge Of the Law Depart
rnent- Il the Egsn case goes the way Of other
actions involving prominent Tammany officials.
-he important papers viii be lost" and the
cases VIII be Digeonholed-
Mr. Grams family bereavemnets did not pre-
vent him from taking an active part in the
Tamuany campaign. he was with Charles F.
Murphy almost every day. Instead OF going
with the other Taunany lights to Hot Springs.
M Cram, for whom a subpoena had been is
sued. sailed on November "A for Europe. Nj.
O'SulIivan put in 2 most fearful plea yesterday,
alleging that M Cram was the most material
witness and that the case could not 20 with
out him
The salt was brought against Egan by the
city for the cancellation Of the lease OF the bulk
head between Twenty-eighth and Twenty ninth
sts. on the North River. N opposition 20 Nj.
o'Sullivan's plea for another adjournment As
sistsrt Corporation Counsel z. J. Mcclure &C.
clared he was ready TO 60 on al once, and that
"a. Cram was not q material OF necessary wit
ness either for the city or the defendant
FORGERY ONE OF THE CHARGES.
NJ O-suI1van. in asking for the postponement
81 The trial reviewed the causes Of action as
stated in the complaint which charges forEe-v
ana alteration OF the ulinutes Of the Dock Board
With reference TO the lease, alleges that the con
sideratior paid for the lease was inadequate
and also asserts that the Sinking Fund Com
rlsssione-s should have been consulted on the
lease.
1Tr. O'SulIivan said the case was placed on the
preferred cause calendar FOR October Is and was
adjourned until November 2 on account Of his
political and personal engagements. and from
rhar date 70 November %
We are anxious 70 60 10 trial Mr.. O'Sulli-
van continued. as my client Is the person who
has been injured. Il any one has been injured. for
ne paid HE money 10 the city, and 70 him has
been denied the use Of the privileges for which
Re GOT his lease Since July last the city has
refused any payment from him. We found,
however. We were unable 20 90 70 trial on &C
count of the absence from The city Of Mr. J.
Sergeant cram. and we present an affidavit from
his associate II business that he VIII not return
1.r-u TIE Christmas holidays. Ee VIII certainly
Re here during the month C January next We
-s-t 20 examine him - connection with the
charge made against the defendant Of frauG and
forgery sr5 that q tanpering with the minutes
~ the DOCK Board. as NJ Cram was president
of the Dock Board and had charge OF the bust
ness as 70 this lease. Re personally fnvesri-
gated. Certain res~lssions were made by him or
under hls authority II resolutions previously
adopted by the Dock BOARD. Charles p Murphy
was ul a the time and NJ. cram and Peter
?. Never comprised The quorum q the Dock
Board which transacted Tia business. Il
was NJ. Cram who directed the drawing ID Of
The lease. and where these fCrgeries and alCera-
lions are alleges -t was he who directed the
erasures. which are noW claimed 10 be Illegal
and destructive OF the papers We therefore
want him IS z witness and believe ne VIII sus-
-a.n or contention that the things called BY
he city r-Utnatons q public records were al
-erstio-s necessary and ordered 10y him e p-esi-
Dent q The Dock Board
We say The defendant is Absolutely innocent
~ his part e any attempt 70 alter the records.
~ forgery OF conspiracy, and that wii be sus-
tsined by the testimony Of A-r. Cram.
IS 10 the i-a5equacT Of the consideration.
'Er. Cram personally investigated as 10 the
proper amount Of the rental 10 be paid for the
buIkhes5 and found. as he said in a personal
conversation with me. that the city had been
receiving only about 500 IL any year for the
privilege for which the city is charging in This
lease $50 year and had az some years not re-
oeived more than $3.50. Even with the charge
Tor storage for the exterior street. the gross
rental never exceeded S65a"
NJ Mcguire said the city held thar Egaa was
merely z dummy for some one in The Dock
Board during the year 1901. We claim" he
p, e6. that By conspiracy between some man
fr the Dock Board and Egan ne was put in
possession of this huikhead-"
40 such claim is made, interpreted Mr.
C-suIlvs1-
'fr. MCGUIRE we say Eean is to-day in p0s-
session re- the entire buIkhead between Twenty
eighth and Twenty-ninth SITS. or the North
River with The privilege Of erecting dump
there. fo- the consideration II $50 year. thac
rs lease runs for zen wears. with renewals for
ter years each. at The pa-try increase of > per
cerr ~ each renewal
CRA1f 1cT a NECESSARY WITNESS.
we will prove our case. not by NJ Cram
He e not material OF necessary witness al ali.
he wl prove our cose by the documents Of the
Dock Board and bv The evidence OF certain Off
Gals there now. We cannot use 1Ir. cram as a
witness. and he is not a necessary witness FOR
the defendant
We have Tie best witness here in court in the
$50 q M Meyer who can supply an pos
Information as 10 the proceedings Of the
'olk Board. FIR Cram is supposed TO have had
- manages made in the minutes Of the
-il- His acJicrs fn respect 10 the dis
- --t % resolutions passed by the Dock
.- november 8 1901 and the appearance
--'es q different resolutions APPLYING
- 'f' matter and 6xing different
- 49, -t--ion, may be very interesting 70
''e reason for these changes nav