The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1909-06-08
CAMERON GBH|
TRADED IN k
/. B. tEDylRl
Explains Twas Joint Aooopnt -
That Railway Man Knew q Del,
But Defense Thinks Adzii6 &
sion Important.
Argues Broker Was Guilty u 'If,1
tees of Which He ACCUSES CIekz \
-Currie drilled Hard.


The line Of defense to be employees
on behalf OF Louis II. Case and S1fn'
former employees of the defunct br01r<
erage firm OF Cameron Currie Z c.
was clearly outlined In the course pun
sued by the attorneys when the exam.
ination OF the seven defendants ON ~
conspiracy charge and Case on two.
separate warrants charging embex1Iee
ment. was taken up by Justice JefIrie4
Tuesday morning. The .conspiracy
charge being considered first.
AT the very outset, Attorney A. B.
Hall moved to Quash the entire pro
ceeding on. the. ground that. on the fGco
OF the complaint. no crime had beGn:
committed. but Justice Jeffries ovoCy
ruled the motion temporarily and o.
dered the examination to proceed. Hof
will allow the attorneys to subm11'
briefs on the matter later. Cameras
Currie then took the stand az the 1rD&
witness for the prosecution, though ~
had also been subpenaed by the d.
tense.
The defense has also summoned
Henry B. Ledyard, chairman Of III
board OF directors Of the Michig1u
that Cameron Currie traded In. hio
the same thing he charges his form1K
employees with having done. In which,
case the prosecution would be det
prived of one Of its main props. ~.
Currie, however. went into q full e.
PLANTATION OF his dealings as far ~
the Ledyard account was concerneG1
This was to the effect that the account
was a joint one and that all the tr1dr
ing done under 1t was with Mr.. Lei
yards full knowledge. Mr.. Ledyard
was not present in answer to the sub
pena, and Mr.. Currie said he UNDER
stood that the railroad man had LETT
town. 3
The defense also attempted to So
cure an admission from Mr.. Currte
that he knew all along that his eu1@
ployes were trading under the names.
OF other persons and under flctitiou0
names, but was unsuccessful. Attor~
ney Henderson declared. however. that
he would show this later.
Mr.. Hall, In support Of his motion
to quash, also contended that, under
the law governing partnerships, one
partner cannot legally defraud an
other, In which case, he argued. the
charges against Defendant Case are
not well founded.
Thus the defense will be, first, that
no crimo was committed, but that. q
there was, Cameron Currie was guilty
of the same practice and that, II Cam
eron Currie knew his clerks were
trading in other names, there was M
conspiracy.
In reply to preliminary questions By
Assistant Prosecutor Aldrich. Mr.. Cur
RE said he had been In the brokerago
business for the past 10 or 16 years.
and that Louis II. Case entered his en-.
ploy as a bookkeeper and later was
taken in AS a partner. His recollec-
ton was that there had been an agree
ment OF partnership, but neither no
nor Mr.. Case had been able to- find the
paper.
was Mr.. Case to share in the firms
losses as well as the profitsr- $3.50
II supposed that was It,"
Under the agreement. II was brought
out, Case was to receive one-tenth OF
the profits and salary OF $4,000 q
year.
did you know OF or did you con.
sent to your employees carrying 30
counts or speculating?" was the next
question.
mo, sir"
when did you first learn they had
accounts?" -->..
IT learned In May, 1908. that Her.
bert Page had an account. / didn't
know about the others until heard
II In the receivers ONCE. when tho
accounts were read off /"
Mr.. Currie then told OF admissions
(Continued ON Page NineJ