The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-08
LOU PAWN GOT A $4,000 CHECK
AND ENDORSED 1T TO SENATOR
PLATT'S EMPRESS COMPANY.
This was Paid in Connection with some
Lobbying for Exempt F1remen and IL
. Brought I'm at the Burnham Trial
Third Dead MAI Appears in the Case.

counsel for tho Mutual Reserve Life Insur-
ance Company, for the larceny Of $500
from the company. concerning whether or
not $40, 900 was paid by Frederick A. Burn
ham, president of the company. to Lou
Payn. then superintendent OF Insurance, for
favorable report on the company. George
Burnham denied that no knew Of any such
payment and II had been denied by Payn
before.
After a few preliminary questions at the
morning session Assistant District Attorney
Mott brought up the question Of the pay
ment Of the $4,000, on which Supreme Court
Justice Greeubaum. before whom the case
Is being tired. hal reserved decision the
night before.
George Burnhlm. who was on the stand,
was asked by Mr.. Mott if he had taken any
part with his brother in the payment of
money TO Lou Payn in 1898. Mr.. Rand
objected to the question, a. he has done TO
similar questions right along. but Justice
Greenhlum ruled that the testimony was
admissible. Mr.. Burnham said he had not,
He denied that his brother had told him
that Payn had demanded 100000 or that
ANYTHING was said 10 him about the pay
nent Of $40, 900 to Payn. He knew nothing
about his brother paying so 600 to Horace
BroCkway 10 reimburse him for his part in
the $40. 900 that Mr.. Mott said had been paid
10 Payn.
Durham was then questioned about
George b. Patterson. who was a clerk for
the Exempt Firemen's Beney client Fund in
1895 AMI who was a client Of Burnham.
From the questions tha followed and Il 9
papers that we're produced it was brought
out that the charge that Payn got $40 600
gn,,, 49,, Mht,,al DaaarN-p A. Inlad an
tha following;
In 1873 the exempt fremen had some
legislation at Alb any which the regular
frcmen were fighting, and it was necessary
that the exempt frcmen should DO some
lobbying. At that time Lou Payn was
not superintendent of Insurance. Mr..
Mott produced a typewriter paper dated
March 20, 1858, which was a receipt by
Burnham for two checks from Patterson.
The receipt mentioned these two checks,
which Burnham agreed he would not let
out of his possession, which he promised
20 guard zealously and which he bound
himself to return intact.
Then Mr.. Mott produced n Photographic
copy Of a check for $40, 600, signed by
Tim otly Donovan, treasurer of the Ex-
empt Firemen's Fund and made payable
W idiilFN 4 . 'bNhlllNs ! "oN lllNlOl6Vb ny
Watkins to Charles p. and W. W. Bulkely,
counsel for the iremen. for legal services.
They had indorsed it 10 Lou Payn and it
bore this Endorsement by Payn; PAY only
10 the credit of the United States Express
Company"
Burnham said he knew that he had seen
the checks, that he thought one of them
had Payn's Endorsement and that he knew
Nhaf Gapatnr II T. PLAT uCaa nraGidanf NJ
the United States Express Company. He
said he knew that the checks had been
photographed, because Patterson had asked
him 70 have them photographed. Burn
ham said that to the best of his knowledge
he had returned the checks 10 Patterson.
There was a strong intimation that the
checks were never returned.
What Mr.. Mott seemed to he trying TO
bring out was that Bnrnham learned from
Patterson of the existence of the Payn
check and went 10 him and got il tempo
TaTily for the purpose Of showing il 10 Payn,
who was then superintendent Of Insurance.
At hat time the Mutual Reserve was in
bad straits. The contention Of the
prosecution is hat Burnham showed the
checks to Payn and got him TO reduce the
demand Of 500 1000 TO $4,000.
Isn't il true" asked Mr.. Mott, that
you got these checks from Mr.. Patterson
because Won wanted to show them to Lou
Payn, and that you told Patterson that
Pawn was bounding the Mutual Reserve?"
1T is not true" replied Burnham.
"Didn' you know that there had been a
great deal Of talk about the methods en-
ploycd to pass a certain bill which was TO
benefit the exempt iremen and that in the
charges aS made at the time of the pas
sage Of the bill the names of Lemuel +.
Quigg and Senator Raines were mentioned2'
81 did not, sir, said Mr.. Burnham.
Burnham said that he showed the checks
b. his brother simply as a matter of curios-
ity. He couldn't explain why he got the
checks and why he agreed to keep them
In n steel vault and 10 he so careful about
them. He denied time and again that he
obtained the checks to show them 10 Payn
for the purpose of making some kin OF an
arrangement with him.
Patterson iS deed, but his son was in the
court room yesterday. According TO the
District Attorneys Information Patterson
sent the checks by his son to Burnham.
After young Patterson had got the checks
hN seemed - tank that precautions in
sd Iiti1n n the ones stipulated in the agree
ment should he taken. Mr.. Mott says that
ii was young Patterson who had the checks
photographed and not Burnham. SO far
as the District Attorney O flee il concerned
nothing can be done in the shape of i'm
.rlic2ting any one because OF the check
transactions.
Burnham denied that his brother paid
s5,575 t. J. Douglas Wells 70 reimburse him
III flIIletIlJl WIN lllt pay lH'uJ " pfOIOOO
% Pawn. He said he had ne personal knowl-
edge of il whatever, but that his brother
had assured him on his most solemn decla-
ration that he did not owe Wells a cent and
he believed him
But isn't it true" persisted Mr.. Mott,
that MIR. PnttHrS)n's son has been TO Nlr. |
Burnham's office - get a return OF those
checks and he has been unable 10 get them?"
THAT is not 50, said Burnham.
That ended his cross examination, which I
had lasted a day and a half. Burnham
eeemed - be very glad 10 ave the job
over. He was followed by George D.
Eldridge, who is vice-president OF the
Mutual Reserve and indicted with the Burn
hams for larceny. He il gray haired. spare
and somewhat clerical looking. He hadn't
been on the stand long before Mr.. Mott had
him pretty badly tangled in his answers.
He mopped his head, shifted in his chair
ana at times was very nervous.
He corroboratcd George Burnham in his
exp l~anation of the transactions between
the company and Lawyer George Edwin
Joseph for the settlement Of the Wells and
other claims against the company. He
said that Wells came - him with a list of
claims amounting - more than SIS, 900.
The claims were for expenditures such as
- ~ 80