The San Francisco call., 1906-05-25

&
mitted here today at the trial IN the
Federal court Of George II. Crosby, the
Burlington traffic manager; George L.
Thomas. the New York freight broker,
and the latter's clerk, l. B. Taggart that
they had received thoupsands OF dollars
in commissions from unknown sources. "
All OF the firms had hired Thomas TO at
tend 10 the shipping of their goods from
the Atlantic seaboard to their stores in
ST. Louis and Kansas City, but none of
the witnesses would say that these sums
Of money had come from Thomas.
W E. Emery, a member OF the Emery
Bird Dry Goods Company, who admitted
receiving from $500 10 $4,000 a year, said
he did not know who sent ii, but sup
posed IL came from Thomas.
Notwithstanding the large sums thus
maid In commissions none OF the firms had
kept any record OF the amounts, accord
ing 10 the witnesses. All payments were
made in New York.
Several officials Of the Burlington Rail-
road were examined as 10 the payment
Of these commissions by that company.
and their testimony developed the fact
that the vouchers for the amounts had
disappeared.
The Government rested their side OF
the case in the afternoon. Judge Q. NJ.
Spencer, for the defendants. filed de-
rnurrer IN al the cases, arguing that no
evidence had been produced TO show
case Of conspiracy, and even II such evi-
dence had been presented the court lacked
jurisdiction as the alleged crime was
committed in New York and not in Mis-
souri. He asked that the case Of Crosby
be dismissed.
Judge Mcpherson oveFruled the motion
as 70 Crosby and said the argument on
the demurrer would be heard tomorrow
morning.
MYSTERIOUS COIN RECEIVED.
T. H. McKittrick, president Of the Har
gadine- -AIcKittrick Dry Goods Company
Of St Louis, the first witness, who had
testified that he had employed Thomas at
q salary of $500 year 10 look after the
interests OF his firm in the matter of
railway rates and routing from the East
admitted that he had received various
sums Of money from unknown sources.
NcKittrick testified a person whom he
did not know entered his Office IN New
York City one day and handed him
bundle of money containing between four
ana i've hundred dollars
McKittrick declared that he did not
know the man who had given him this
money: that he had not since seen him;
that he did not believe he would be able
10 identity the man; and further that
he did not know for what purpose the
money was given him, nor from what
source il came.
At this point District Attorney Van Val
kenburgh requested ". B. kelby, Thomas
clerk. TO stand up, and. pointing TO kelby
asked the witness: rs this the man who
handed the money TO you in your New
York ofice2"
I 90 not know: do not believe could
Identify the man" replied AcKittrick-
McKittrick. continuing his testimony,
said that he had employed Thomas while
he was in New York on May l. 1902, sign
ling contract, which was renewed again
IT. = 1f.aff. f.a1
employment claiming that he would be
able TO ship goods TO McKittriclk's house
from the East IN the most economical
way. and by the railway giving the best
service. Thomas duties also were 10 in
clude the settlement Of all cases Of losses
in shipment and overcharges, and to OBJ
tain from Lowell, Mass, and other, mill
centers the usual mill allowances offered
by buyers who accepted freight on a
basis Of shipment from New York
Thomas had been employed later on the
same conditions, but with no new con-
tract.
IN reply TO q direct question McKittrick
said that he had at various times re-
ceived money from unknown sources
Witness then detailed the receipt Of
the money in his New York Office from
an unknown man. Continuing, he said
that some Of the money had been received
by express. In this manner, he said, his
firm had within four or five years re-
.ceived about $4,000, during which time
they had paid out S4S0,000 in freight
charges. Ia one instance, ne sad, lie mad
received some money personally, and this
he had deposited in his brothers private
bank
on denomination McKittrick said
that IN seeking employment Thomas had
said he would get any legitimate commits
sions from railways that AIcKittricks firm
might be entitled to, and from any water
lines not subject to the interstate COM
merce act
Witness said he and Thomas had talked
over the matter OF rebates, and it was
agreed that no rebates We're TO be sought.
lie did not know that money received in
his New York Office or by express had
come from Thomas.
PARTIAL ADMISSION MADE.
The next witness was Hugh NcKittrick,
son Of T H McKittrick and vice presi-
dent Of the Hargadine-M -McKittrick Dry
Goods Company.
Hugh AIcKittrick testified 10 receiving
money twice while in the New York Of
fee. once, in 1902, an express package
containing $1,000 was received by the wit
ness He did not know where it came
from. The money was credited in a book
used for odds and ends"
AT another time said the witness, "a
gentleman came. handed me the money
and SdlC IL was coming 70 NE
The witness said he did not know the
man, did not ask his name and did not
care TO know it.
Kelby, Thomas clerk. was asked TO
stand up. but McKittrick unable to
identify him as the who had given
him the money
J. X Burnham, president of the Burn
ham, Hanna & Munger Dry Goods Com
pany at Kansas City, testified that he had
hired Thomas at a salary Of $1,000 a year
for attending 10 the freight business of
the firms Kansas City and Detroit houses.
Burnham admitted receiving $3.50 from
Thomas in the past three years.
This was, I supposed" said the wit
ness. "for mistakes in classification, claims
for damages etc. AL money was paid to
me in New York, think
". Z. Emery, a member Of the Emery
Bird -Thayer Dry Goods Company Of Kan
sas City. testified that he had hired Thom-
as for four or five years at a salary of $500
a year. and that in that time he had re-
ceived between $500 and $1,000 year.
L. Nr< off 47rsaHf Hfs7