Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-06
Debenture Company Of Columbus. Ohio, as

| Debenture Company Of Columbus. Ohio. as
| general manager, and was a stakeholder In
the Ohio Debenture Company. A copy or
| MFR. Barrett's opinion wa2 received by the
| witness. AS he thought his company was
| affected thereby. he prepared new form
of certificate, and came to this city jan
| uary l. 1901.
The witness visited Gen. Tyner and asked
| for hearing. Gen. Tyner asked II he had
| an attorney. The witness Inquired the
| name of a good attorney and Mr.. Barrett
was recommended to him by Gen. Tyner.
] The latter added however. that there were
other good attorneys in this city.
Continuing. Mr.. Spenny testified that he
| visited Mr. Barrett and the latter said he
| would represent the witness company be-
| fore the department for $1,000. He finally
reduced the fee to 500. The witness. jan
! uary 4. 1891. proceeded to the department
| with Mr.. Barrett who stated to Gen.
| Tyner that he represented the witness
| company: that he had examined the certffi-
| cate. and that it complied with the law.
| Gen. Tyner then said to Mr.. Barrett:
Il now put you on your honor as an at
| torney and gentleman. and If you say
| that this certificate meets all the require
ments of the law will pass on 1t.
Mr.. Barrett repeated his assertion that
| the certificate met the requirements. and
the witness returned home provided with a
letter from Gen. Tyner showing that HIS
company was entitled to use the mails
On cross-examiRation, Attorney Worth
ington asked the witness IL Gen. Tyner had
not mentioned to him the names of attor-
neys other than Mr.. Barrett at the time
Indicated
Il didn't catch your question Judge !"
said Mr.. Spenny.
I'm not a judge-not yet" Attorney
Worthington explained, his remark causing
laughter.
mony. Attorney Worthington formally di-
| rected attention to the fact that the de-
Tense, in its opening statement to the jury,
had admitted that Mr. Barrett had repre-
son Oh hot tha
about thirty bond investment concerns, in
the matter of having their certificates
changed in orde to comply with the depart
ments rulings.
Additional Testimony offered.
The prosecution, however. insisted on in
Producing additional evidence on that sub
ject, and called as witness Walter Brown,
who said he had been counsel for the To-
ledo Debenture Company of Toledo, Ohio
Mr. Brown remarked he had seen a card
announcing that Mr.. Barrett intended to
engage in practice. Attorney WOrthing-
ton objected to this statement unless it
could be shown definitely to whom the card
seen by the witness had been originally
sent.
I'VE deny emphatically." Attorney Worth
ington repeated, that Mr.. Barrett sent his
announcement cards to loan investment
companies"
Mr.. Brown told of hearing he partici-
pated in at the department, at which Mr..
Barrett represented the government, and
the usual midday recess was then taken.
His Visits to Department.
At the session this afternoon Mr.. Brown
was required to testify in detail regarding
his visits to the defendant, and regarding
the form of contract issued by his company
and changes that were made therein, as the
result CT rulings made by the assistant at
torney general for the Postoffice Depart
ment.
1t was suggested to him at the department
on one occasion, he said, that he and other
interested parties might stop at Baltimore
on their way west and consult Mr.. Nelm
and Mr.. Barrett. The parties in question did
visit Messrs. Nelm & Barrett in Baltimore,
but the witness said he entered into no ar
rangement, business or otherwise, with
them.
Again the court seemed to think that the
inquiry was too prolonged. Attorney
Worthington thereupon remarked that he
regretted that so much time was being con-
sumed, but he said If the government in
sisted on drawing out the details of all con-
versations INDUCED in by the witnesses he
was compelled to also go into the same sub
jects.
Mr.. Walter Brown was succeeded on the
witness stand by Mr.. Ralph T. Brown who
is also connected with the Toledo Deben-
ture Company. He was asked regarding
the receipt by his company of cards an
had formed a law partnership.
Objection Overruled.
The defense insisted that the card re-
ceived by the witness should be produced,
and that without it the witness should not
be permitted to testify, as the mere re-
ceipt of card by the witness did not tend
to show that it had been sent to him by
Mr.. Barrett.
After spirited argument Justice Pritch-
ard overrued the objection, and the wit
ness permitted to testify that the card
he received. as near as he could recollect
was similar to one offered in evidence. 1t
was dated in December 1900, and set forth
that Harrison j. Barrett, assistant attor-
ney for the Post Office Department begs
leave to announce that January L 1901
he would leave the department and asso-
ciate himself in practice with j. Henning
helms.
Next to be called as witness by the gov
eminent was A. D. EaStOn who is connect
ed with the Germania Investment Company
of Cincinnati, Ohio. His company, he testi-
in connection with its dealings with the
Post Office Department.
The cross-examination of Mr. Easton was
suspended in order that Mr.. L. E. Pearce
of Lexington, Ky. who was also connected
with a bond investment company might
testify. Mr.. Pearce was anxious to return
to his home as soon as possible.
He told of receiving a card announcing
the forma ton of the Barrett-Nelms part
nership.
At the conclusion of the examination of
Mr.. Pearce an adjournment was taken UNI
til next Monday morning.