New-York tribune., 1907-12-03
FACES PERJURY TRIAL
Continued from first page.

o,co con,pany delivered to Vermilye & co. GER
ttfcateg for 29e shares OF Federal Trust COM
nanv ste * also the collateral securing the SzoU'
900 call loan OF William A Read and letter.
stgned nv Mr. Hegeman. which said that 'he
stock of the Federal Trust Company was sou ~
yerrnilye s. Co. with the understanding Inat II
,.as ~ he repurchased on January at the price,
sso o5s for which it was sold The letter also
said:
Also find inclosed collateral for account @ a 0a
c Wa Tor a s ResS %hSteSer part Of this ali
would ike back on January I vii send YOU Certain
nsners as heretofore advised in detail ana receive eve
rU or check al the same time on deposit account for
$500 on January ,o S We s Sis Is and drawing on
deposit 500 Whatever interest 6f nay ee ee
involved in this please make US an account u 'e
the transactions are over
The certain papers referred to were the
papers in connection with the conpany's interest
in four syndicates. $4,000 OF the National Shoe
and Leather Bank syndicate. SSooooo OF the
Omaha 6 Sioux City syndicate, Sloo,ooo OF the
Pittsburg & Toledo syndicate and S4Z4'Sfo - OF
the San Francisco Street Railway syndicate
These papers were delivered TO NerInllye d
Co. and the company's check for the aggregate
amount received in return On January : this
operation was reversed
when the entries of the last transaction were
L,
dicated that the amount paid had been dtstrib-
uted to the four syndicates. This formed the
isis for four indictments. Similar transactions
IN 1903 and 1904 showed basis for two indict-
ments. III
Justice Dowliny holds that Mr.. Hegeman was
responsible for the entries. but that the fact
that there was agreement by Vermilye &
Co to retransfer the loans to some extent mega
tives the contention that there actual
bona-fide sale.
Justice Dowling then takes up the question of
sustaining the indictments for forgery. and holds
that there was nothing In the mass OF evidence
adduced before the grand jury to show that
these entries were made wit intent to defraud
The brief Of the District Attorney, he says. does
not show where such was the He con-
tinues
pears. by the testimony Of several witnesses, and
that was to show by the annual reports that the
Ioaning company. or as OF the witnesses put
it, the officers did not desire to have II known that
they loaning on collateral as otherwise they
would be overwhelmed with applications for loans
cial service If they made such loans generally
while their policy was as they phrased it. TO keep
avav from everything in connection with the STOCK
ticker" But Il motive In criminal case differs
widely from an intent Here the motVe bd Tas Iass ce p
even appear that one has been deceived
At the same time that the motion in behalf
Of Mt Hegeman was made, similar motions
were made in behalf of George w Perkins.
president of the New York Life Insurance Com
many. and Robert ~ Granniss, vice-president of
the Mutual Life Insurance Company, who are
under indictment for forgery. In speaking of
the cases Mr.. Jerome said:
.The decision In the Hegeman case does not
settle the questions. The questions raised in the
decisions will be appealed TO higher courts