New-York tribune., 1906-03-17
nEN0UNCED BY MAYER.
cyySATION At HEARING.
Claim against Building Loan Com
o1ng attacked by attorney General.

Attorney General Mayer caused a sensation
...,srday afternoon in his argument before the
.-nellate Division of the Supreme Court in op-
.ss,ton 10 the claim Of Charles p Bacon for
sS4sl "a against the defunct New York Build
'-r1oan Banking Company. Mr. Bacon's claim
g hased on an alleged verbal contract of No
,,rber s. 1902, by which the officers OF the COM
r,rv promised TO pay him S100 a day for his
.,-zsoes while the State Superintendent Of Banks
,.s trying 10 have the company dissolved Mr.
usyer represents the people on an appeal from,
10 award Of the referee in the case.
Reading from the testimony Of Mr. Bacon that
bs had been engaged 10 look after the interests
:. the company at Albany, Mr.. Mayer said Mr.
sscon stated he never went TO Albany for less
bsn $1,000. and he had agreed to give up his
bone and business in California TO enter the
,uupsny's service at 500 a day. His statement
xss that he had been in the continuous service
ot the company for 80 days, exclusive of Sun
DAYS. Mr. Mayer said:
II seems incredible that the officers of a build
,rr and loan association should have the audac-
iy when their company was under attack, un-
isss they foresaw Inevitable dissolution to make
! contract TO pay salary OF 500 a day for
such fragmentary, will-o'-the-wisp services as
rr. Bacon made the trips to Albany. On his
slrect examination IL was one a week for 267
o.
IN oss-eXaminatiOn this shrunk to twenty
srore or less" in addition TO two previously
6sscrbed. Each and every one was for the pur-
noe OF seeing Attorney General Cunneen, saws
Mr Bacon. Mr.. Cunneen was willing TO swear
raj he did not see him, all together, more than
isr times. and he thought the number less
We take IL that If any member OF that asso-
rssron had learned that such a contract had
bssn made the Supreme Court would gladly
rave enjoined the officers against permitting II
70 be carried out. Moreover, IL is incredible that
had the company successfully defended the
people's suit FOR its dissolution the claimant
would ever have here paid the long arrears of
his salary of $500 a week.
II is incredible that any such contract was
ever made. and the interested testimony Of the
claimant party, uncorroborated in its essen
ual features by any witness, was contrary TO
he evidence and should have been disbeIieved
by the referee.
NJ. Mayer referred in passing TO Judge"
Andrew Hamilton and Frank H. Platt as having
been araons the lawyers employed by the COM
Nry, but he did not enter into the details Of
their employment John B. Stanchfeld ap-
pssred for Mr.. Bacon, and argued that the con-
tract 10 pay Mr.. Bacon 500 a day for services
G, Albany valid. He added:
the distinguished gentlemen who represent
he other side thought that the services of Mr.
Bacon were not worth 500 a day, why did they
aot produce a single witness TO prove they were
n0t worth that much? We are not at all worried
as 10 The outcome Of this case # your honors
viii conhne your attention solely TO what Is
inside the record We would be worried and
Gnnoyed II we were TO suppose that the insinua-
tons and hints Of the other, side that there was
Hnething peculiar about the services TO be rem
tere6 are 70 be influential in fixing the deter
nnation OF the court 1 do not know that any
gscoessful lawyer would consider 500 a day
ressive for going 70 Albany; no, nor $1,000 a
aE II Il were 20 represent a corporation with
assts Of S9s0o00oo.
As usual, the Appellate Division reserved de-
clsior.