The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-24
And LETTER WIN.
HELD Not LIABLE FOR INTER-
NATIONAL POWER roof,

hIch Cyrus Field Judson Manipulated for
a Loss which Brokers Had TO stand
Appellate Division Decides Against
BrOker Their Cases 20 Go Higher.
In two decisions rendered yesterday in
the Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court, Joseph II. Hoadley and Joseph
Letter proved victorious in suits instituted
against them for their connection will the
celebrated International Power Company
pool. II was remarked as a curious coinci-
dence that the Justice who wrote the pre-
vailing opinion in their favor in one suit
wrote the only dissenting opinion in the
other suit.
Franklin a Scott, brokers. obtained a
verdict in the Supreme Court for $50, 900
against Hoadley and Letter after a trial
before Justice Amend and a jury. The
suit was brought on the allegation that
Hoadley and Letter were oopartners with
Cyrus Field Judson in various speoulations
which Judson made in International Power
through Franklin a Scott.
The contention OF the brokers was that
Hoadley and Letter were equally responsible
with Judson for the failure Of the pool.
When the stock collapsed Judson became
indebted to Franklin 4 Scott to the amount
of the verdict rendered. Part OF the evil
dence adduced at the trial was that Hoadiey
and Letter had Joined with Judson in an
offer OF compromise TO the many brokers,
including Franklin 4 Scott, 10 whom JUDI
son was heavily indebted.
Justice Houehton, writing the opinion
of the Appellate Division, ordering a re-
versal of the judgment, m a new trial OF the
suit, says that the evidence admitted by
Justice Amend as TO the offer of compromise
was incompetent and improper, especially
in view OF the fact that the offer was not
acce pied. Testimony by Judson as to
such an offer in proof OF his alleged copart-
nership is not binding on the other de-
PENDANTS and should therefore not have
been admitted.
The other suit was brought by Willard H.
Jones, a stock broker, against the same
defendants OF practically the same ale
cations. That suit wa tried before Justice
Bowling, who instructed the jury that they
could only find against Hoadley and Letter
Jointly and not against either separately.
Edmund L.. Mooney, counsel for the
brokers, objected TO this charge OF Justice
bowling, and in its prevailing decision
the Appellate Division remarked that the
point raised by Mr.. Mooney has never
come before the court in similar form be-
fore. The opinion OF the court admits
that there was more evidence as to Hoad-
ley's completely in Judson's transactions
than "a TO Letters. But the court says
as the only point before the court was the
existence of the pool betw cen the three
men Justice DowlinG's charge was proper
and the objections TO it are not appealable.
Justice HouRhton in a dissenting opinion
says that in his view Mr.. MONEYS excep-
tions TO Justice Dowling's charge were
properly taken. He points out that many
men may he charged with the liabilities
of a copartnership and yet only some OF
them NAV be proven TO be actual partners
under the agreement. He thinks, there
fore. tina the Judgment rendered by the
Jury before Justice Bowling relieving Hoad-
ley and Letter Of any liability for Judsons
act should he reversed and a new trial or
dered. Both decisions will be carried to
the Court OF Appeals.