New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-18
SUBPOENA FOR ROGERS.
Nay BE Adjuded IN Contempt IN
Ban State Case.

Boston March I7.-To-day's hearing the Bay
state Gas Company litigation in the Supreme Court
was the interesting OF all since the trial Of the
suit beean nearly two weeks ago Interest cen
tired chiefly in the appearance on the witness stand
Of Henry H. Rogers. OF New-York. one OF the de-
PENDANTS.
Just before readjournment the case took a sensa-
tionaI turn when Mr.. Rogers threatened with
contempt proceedings because Of his refusal to pro-
duce certain letters called for by Sherman l. Whip
pie, counsel for George W. Pepper, receiver Of the
Bay State Gas Company, who is the complainant
in the suit Mr.. Rogers had refused to produce
the correspondence, on the ground that all letters
that had bearing on the case had been produced
in court. Mr.. WhippIe cOntended that il for
the court and not for the witness, TO pass on the
competency OF the correspondence, and, in view OF
Mr.. ROgers's refusal to produce the letter books
covering the period from January T. 1900. to the
present time asked Judge Barker to adjourn court
that a subpoena compelling the witness 10 produce
the desired letters might be issued In the event
Of Mr. Rogers refusing to obey the subpoena, Mr..
Whippe will ask that contempt proceedings be
begun against him.
In compliance with Mr. Whipple's motion. Judge
Barker ordered court adjourned until tomorrow
morning in order that the subpoena might be
served
two weeks, having been confined to his hotel b.
Illness - BEFORE ne was called an at'1Ensy iqT ME-
Mercantile Trust Company % New-York. another
the mansgeSn Of Several local gas eomps9es
At the outset Mr.. Rogers was examined 10 his
associations with Robert Winsor, Of kidder. Pea
body & Co. also defendants in the case
Mr. Rogers questioned by Mr.. Whipple
garding the correspondence between himself and
either A. g Burrag go or Q. D. Burrage, and several
letters were produced. He was then asked II there
was any further correspondence between himself
and either Of the Burrages. Witness replied that
there had been some correspondence between them,
but the letters not material to the Gas
Mr.. Whipple asked the witness II he refused 10
produce the letter books covering the correspond
ence between January J. 1850, and the present time
thought attorney ought TO have the right 10
respond for a defendant the stand in such
circumstances. At this point Judge Barker said
that he understood that Mr.. Rogers declined 20
produce the correspondence in question. The action
described above then took place
Examined by Mr.. Whlpple, n lawyer. Mr.. Rogers
testified that he had first met Thomas ". Lawson
seven or eight years In relation TO matters
He had had several conferences with him during
the confusion between the BrOOkline and Boston
comps MES, Mr.. Rogers said that A. G. BUrrage
acted as MS representative in the negotiations Incl
dent 70 the contract between the BrOOkins Gas
Light Company and the Boston company. and at
the time when the sO-Cstlled gas settled.
He did not recall that Mr.. Lawson had any cOuneC-
ton with these negotiations. though his name may
have been mentioned.
At the afternoon session much time was devoted
by Mr. Whipple to tnQuirtng Of Mr.. Rogers to
what letters he had written IN connection with the
Affairs Of the Bay state Gas Company OF New
Jersey. between 1897 and 1872 The letter books were
not at hand ard Mr. Rogers said he had "a poor
memory as to their contents. He recalled. how
ever, that his secretary had written In letter
20 J. Edward Addicks, calling the Bay State
Gas Company Of Delaware, for a payment OF S4.50U
and advising Mr. Addicks that Mr.. ROgers had ad-
seq 5000 To pay it's State taxes between 1886 and