The Detroit times., 1909-06-10
BOURKE' 5 STORY IS
HARD KNOCK FOR
PROSECUTOR
Brought To Court By Detectives He
Testifies That Cameron Currie
Was Heavy Spectator
Himself.
Saws Head of Firm and Lewis Case
Ran Account In Witness Name
To Suit Themselves.

The prosecution In the conspiracy
case against Louis III. Case and for
mer employees OF Cameron Currie q
Co. underwent another buGfeting.
Wednesday afternoon, when Michael
j. Bourke. whose name has figured
prominently In the case from the out
set, took the witness stand. He was
brought to court by Detective Emory
Brooks on an attachment issued by
the court at the instance OF the de-
tense. Mr. Bourke had been reported
III OF ptomaine poisoning. but the Of
ficer found him sittins on the porch
of his nome at No. 102 Ferry-ave. east.
IL was evident, however. that he had
been Ill.
II ought to fine you for contempt OF
court" said Justice Jeffries, sternly.
glowering at the witness from under
his shaggy eyebrows But Mr.. Bourke
protested that he had only left his
bed at noon, and the court accepted
the explanation.
Although Mr. Bourke had been sub
pened by the defense, Attorney Hen
derson contrived to have him called
as a witness. nominally, for the prose
cution. and then secured from him on
cross-examination evidence or the
greatest importance TO the defense as
bearing on the admissions OF Cameron
Currie that the firm would not have
become insolvent IL the bad accounts,
totaling over 100000. had been paid.
Among these was the Bourke account,
and the testimony OF Mr.. Bourke was
to the effect that Cameron Currie a.
Co. were as much interested In the
account as he was himself. II not
more so. II was under their control
absolutely, he said and he consented
TO this because he was anxious TO see
them pull the account out OF tho hole
II possible, and recoup the losses Sus-
tanned as a result OF the San Fran
cisco disaster.
II was because OF the fact that Mr..
Curie and Mr.. Case had run the ac-
count to suit themselves. Mr.. Bourke
explained. that he did rot feel Obliged
to pay. the 100000 chalked up against
him by the receiver.
II did not consider II my debt at
ALL" he said, "for the account was en-
tirely under their control. They often
sold out stocks without consulting
me. | had stocks that | wanted to
cover. but they wouldn't let me, and
carried them along until they nau 10
be closed out at loss. But | wasn't
in a position to object. | wasn't put
ting up any margins, and wasn't ask
ed to do SO, In fact The stocks,
figured. really belonged to them
"Then what were you doing?' de-
manded Mr.. Aldricn.
81 was trying 70 make some money.
"And If your stocks had netted a
profit OF a million to whom would 1t
have belonged?'
why. q would have been mine"
The court room roared.
Mr.. Aldrich tried hard to get wit
ness to say that no deals were ever
closed in his account except on his
own ultimate judgment, but failed
utterly.
81 bought stocks lots of times on
Mr.. Curries Judgment. he said.
Even against your own?'
eyes"
Mr.. Bourke mentioned specifically
as one OF the stocks he wanted to
close out a quantity OF Copper Range
II spoke to the firm about it," he
said. but they said the ydidnt have
the money. They were afraid 1t might