Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-06-05
BROKER BROWN
MUST ANSWER
IN HIGH COURT
POLICE JUSTICE HEARS OF
BUSINESS TANGLES
JEWELER TELLS OF WORTHLESS
CHECKS HE cAsHED
Prisoner Unable to Furnish Heavy
Bail and Is Returned to His
Quarters in the County
Jail
T AIRY D. BROWN. the corpulent

" AIRY D. BROWN, the corpulent
II 300 per cent broker, familiarly
- known as Hurryup Harry, was
held to answer in the superior court
on the charge of embezzling $500 from
DIR. Nettie E. Hammond by Police
Justice Chambers, after hearing
that occupied the entire court session
yesterday. His bail was fixed at
$4,000, which is the same as set
when Brown was brought back from
Oakland, where he had fed, leaving be-
hind hundreds of persons from whom.
1t is alleged, he stole money in various
sums, said to aggregate $250,OOO.
The hearing brought forth the details
of the manner in which the broker
transacted his business. 1t showed the
persuasive art that Brown used In put
ting off his patrons when they pressed
him too closely for their 300 per cent
dividends, and also the fact that even
after The Heralds expose of Browns S
methods of transacting business the
victims still retained implicit faith in
the ability of Brown to fleece the
lambs of Wall street and turn enormous
dividends into the hands of his clients.
Although Browns peculations are
summed up approximately at $250,000,
the specific charge against him was the
embezzlement of $500 from DR.. Ham
mond, who, however, in the course of
her testimony admitted that in all she
had entrusted about $4,000 to Brown,
for which she never received the slight
est return.
Defendant Coaches Lawyers
Brown was represented by Attorneys
G.. w. Pearson and Fred Lake. Pear
son took advantage of the prisoners
rights and requested that the hearing
be held behind closed doors. This was
ordered, but later newspaper men were
allowed to hear the evidence.
Brown appeared neatly dressed in a
light summer suit, white shirt, and his
general appearance did not indicate
that his confinement in the county Jail
had affected him physically. He took
an active part in the hearing and con-
tinually coached his attorneys during
the cross-examination of the witnesses.
He appeared calm and confident, and
showed by his laughter that he enjoyed
the tits between the district attorney
and his lawyers. But when some point
was scored against the defense, beads
of perspiration would appear. on his
broad face and he would busy himself
| with his handkerchief.
Brown talked confidently with report
ers during lulls in the hearing, and
! stated that when his trial was over
| and he had been cleared Of the charges
J against him he would show the citizens
] OF LOS AIlS6leS IIldI ne udu uOliS uluCli
good during his three years opera
tions here and is not as bad as he has
been painted. He objected strenuously
to the appellation of 1900 per cent"
which has been given him since his
| hurried exit from Los Angeles.
Police Justice Chambers heard the
| case in place of Justice Rose, who has
gone east with the body of his wife.
At the close of the hearing a motion by
Browns attorneys to dismiss the COM
plants of Joseph Rittigstein, alleging
the passing of worthless checks for
$4,000 and $1,000 was granted Rittigstein
has instituted civil proceedings against
Brown to recover his losses incurred
by cashing checks for Brown which
were returned with the familiar label,
| mo funds
Large Returns Promised
| DR.. Hammond was the first witness
called, and her testimony was not con-
cluded until late in the afternoon. She
testified that on January she gave a
check for $500 on the First National
bank to Brown to be invested in Mis-
souri, Pacific stock. She said Brown
| had told her the stock was due to rise
and that at the end Of thirty days her
money would be returned and that she
would also receive about 150 shares of
| tine STOCK. Inc WllIlcSS lCoLlllOo bAlb
Brown said a pool was being formed
consisting of several multi-millionaires,
and that the stock could be bought
| through the brokerage firm of Logan
& Bryan much cheaper because a
large amount was to be purchased.
Brown told her that her investment
would net her about $1,000 and that
by paying the $500 the increase in the
value of the stock would be sufficient
| to pay the balance. DR.. Hammond said
Brown informed her he was working
on a commission basis and was not
conducting a bucket shop
In answer to a query as to whether
she had business experience Dr. Ham
mond replied: "I- have had consider
able experience, but 1 am not very
good business woman"
She stated that she gave the money
70 Brown with the distinct understand
ing that he was to buy Missouri Pacific
stock and from Logan & Bryan, which
she said was not done.
what returns did you get?" asked
Attorney Spring.
IT never got any return at all, re-
piled Dr. Hammond.
"On whose advice did you instruct
Brown to buy through the Logan q
Bryan house?" asked the attorney
ITO my sorrow I did everything on
Browns advice" replied the witness
"At the end of thirty days" con-
tinued the witness, Il told Brown
must have the money, as was agreed.
He advised me to leave the money a
little longer. as the stock was due for
another rise Again when / tried to
get the money, or the stock, he told me
that one of the firm was away and
that he could not transact the business
that day. He always had some reason,
which he put in a plausible light and
kept putting off settlement on one
pretext or another. l believed in
eaVe , h him nearly Si0, 900 to invest. ali of
which was lost"
Woman's Statement Stands
The attorneys for Brown endeavored
to have DR.. Hammond change her
statement about the firm in which
Brown was to invest the money. but
without effect.
P. w. Bloomer, a clerk at the First
National bank, identified the check
90