The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-29
TESTIMONY ON pawn HOLDUP
RULED OUT Ri THE Court At
THE BURNHAM TRIAL.
story Revived That Insurance superlntend-
eni cot SEQ, 900 From Mutual Reserve
President Lawyer Tells Of Burnham's
Method Of Settling Private suits.

preme Court, Criminal Branch, Yesterday
was an offer Of testimony TO the effect that
$4,000 was paid in 1893 by Frederick A.
Burnham, president of the Mutual Reserve
Life Insurance Company, which was then
the Mutual Reserve Fund Association. tn
Lou Payn. at.thst time State Superintendent
" Insurance, in order that the company
could make a report showing that il was in
good shape.
This has been referred to before, both at
the Armstrong committee investigation and
before the Canadian Senate. Before the
Armstrong committee, after George d,
Eldridge. vice-president OF the company,
who is indicted with the Burnhams, had
been asked sbou ii, Mr.. Psyn said the story
was a deliberate fslsehood and that he
never got a cent.
William Rand. Jr., counsel for the Burn
hams, objected to the Introduction of this
testimony, and he was sustained by Justice
Greenbaum after the whole thing had been
threshed out while the jury was out of the
court room. Unless something should hap
pen to open the door for the Introduction
of the testimony, which is not likely, il will
not he admitted at the trial.
}. Douglas Wells. who was the Canadian
agent of the company and became one of
III W. ""E Sh hhS NsAe Vh' ~
ipcident came up The charge against
George Burnham, Jr., is that as counsel
for the company he advised his brother,
Frederick A., to settle a private claim
Wells had against Ere de rick A. Burnham,
and that Frederick A. did so with the COM
pany's money. Mr.. Wells testified that
he went to Europe in 1897 with his wife on
business for the company and that the
Company vas to pay the expenses Of him
self and Wife Wells put in a bill for S., 100
and was paid when he came back in 1893.
Then Assistant District Attorney Mott
asked him about a conversation he had
with Fred rick A. BuTnham soon after
that. This was the conve rsation that Mr..
Rand objected to, saying that il was in
no way binding on the defendant. Justice
Greenbaum said he was familiar with the
nature Of the conversation but he would
exclude the Jury and near argument on its
admissibility.
Mr.. Mott said that President Burnham
told Wells that he nees1ed money; that
Lou Payn had demanded 500 900 for favor
able report on the company's condition as
the Insurance Department had investi-
gated the company and found it was in
solvent. MIR. Burnham also told Mr.. Wells,
according TO Mr.. Mott, that he had had
many ne EQUATIONS with Mr.. Payn and that
MI. GHNn ndl IIldllN ttlutu W COII uOWHI
10 $4,000, which Mr.. Burnham paid. Mr..
Pawn then allowed the company to draw
up a report TO suit itself and a draft of the
report was shown by Mr.. Burnham to Mr..
Wells.
Wells told Mr.. Burnham," said Mr.. Mott,
that the report wasn't worth 40 cents,
because il the company was insolvent that
fact ought to be known, and il would be
better for everybody concerned. II the
company was solvent and in good condition,
Whv nav The money at ALP |
But Mre Burnham told Mr.. Wells that he
had paid the money out of his own pocket,
that he had borrowed the money from
frie nds and that he was crippled financially. |
He had borrowed So 900 from Horace Brock
way, and he purposed to put him on the
payroll OF the company until thu money
was paid
Thereupon, Mr.. Mott said, Wells loaned
to Mr.. Burnham s.. $50, which he gave him
in cash, Mr.. Burnham making that request. \
Justice Gree nbaum wanted to know what (
he caring all this had on the charge that Burn
ham took the company's funds to settle
tie debt after Wells had brought suit.
Why should Ire take the company
money! Why should he not pay il out of
his own pocket?" Justice Greenbaum asked.
Dist riot Attorney jerome came into court
and he went to Mr.. Motifs assistance. He
said that it was a dishonest debt, and that
there were very good reasons why Burnham
should object to Wells's suit going to trial
and thereby bring out all the circumstances
concerning IIt lOdus H was iiOCt COktIJ |
to conceal the motive for the loan, Mr..
Jerome said. In addition, Mr.. Jerome said,
Brockway had been put on the c~ompany's
payroll at $500 a week until he got $500 for
the loan Inc made to Burnham. A PROPOSE
ton made to Wells, Mr.. Jerome said, was
that he should be put on the payroll and paid
in a like manner. These two things, taken
together, would indicate that Burnham
took the money from the company to pay
Wells. 1t was an iniquitous transaction.
Mr. Jerome said.
Suppose Burnham considered that the
money he got from Wells was used for the
company and that the company should pay
It baokT" suggested Justice Greenbaum.
Exactly So" replied Mr.. jerome, but,
of course, he was using the c~ompany's
money to settle a suit against him as an
individual"
INV friends said Mr.. Rand most anna
bIv. seem to have confused the motive
for settling the case with the motive for steal
ing the money. There may have been a
strong motive for settling the case, with
whsch we have nothing to do here; but
was that the same motive for stealing the
company's money? | should say not"
Justice Creenbaum remarked that per-
baps Mr.. Durham was without funds.
But this was a year after the loan,
eaid Mr.. Rand, land in this blessed country
OF ours a man may not have a cent at the
beginning Of a year and at the end have
Millions
Il have no doubt he had lots of money
tnen, salu MI. NOI. |
That settled the question in Justice
Greenbaum's mind. He couldn't see il
he had lots of money why he should steal.
Unless something developed at the trial
he would exclude the testimony, Justice
Greenbaum ruled.
You can't tell, we may open the door,"
said Mr.. Rand.
Il don't think So" said Justice Green
baum; -Yon are trying to keep the door
Lou Pawn has commended all along that
this story was simply started because OF
the fight between Wells and Burnham over
the payment Of this loan.
When the Jury was recalled Mr.. Wells
was excused temporarily, and Lawyer
George Edwin Joseph, who was counsel
for Wells in the suit, was called as a witness.
He said that he had a conversation with
George Burnham in the spring OF 1899
about the Wells and other suits at which
the question Of settling them all came up.
Wells demanded his full claim OF $3.50,
and Mr.. Joseph announced that the Mutual
would nave to pay his fee. In all $1,000
had to be paid on the suits. and IL was
agreed that Joseph was to get 5000 from
the p for what he did.
Burnham agreed to nav $1,000 down