New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-04
WISE HAS HARD FIGHT
IN TRIAL OF HE|NzE
Courts Rulings Force Federal
Attorney to Revise Plan
of His Case.
POOL EVIDENCE BLOCKED
Day, However, Not Altogether
Without Encouragement
for the Government
Prosecutor.

81VSSS&SOk'
United States Attorney Wise. laboring
under the disadvantage of Judge Hough
decision not 10 permit the introduction of
evidence relating TO the existence of pool
In United Copper Company stock prior to
1907 as of no relevancy TO the case, strug-
gied hard yesterday in the trial Of T. Au-
Eustus Heinze, TO connect him with the
operations in which loans from himself and
the Mercantile National Bank to Otto
Heinze e. Co. figured. on several occasions
Just as he was about 10 get in important
testimony an objection from John r.,
Stanchfeld, Of counsel for Heinze, sus-
tanned by the court, blocked him.
II looked like a hopeless game, but MI
Wise persisted He thought he had an en-
tering wedge in the testimony of the day
before. given by Max H. Schultze, that
r Augustus Heinze had written a letter
10 J. s. Rache & Co. on January 10. 1906
guaranteeing the account of his brother,
Arthur p. Heinze. and of Schultze.
The United States Attorney, because Of
the fact that the letter did not place
time limit on the guarantee, wanted 10
show that il applied TO as late October
Il. 1897. when the loan of $4,000 was made
by Heinze to the firm. But on cross-ex-
animation Schultze said positively that the
guarantee mao NoJ1lnS 10 40 WIFI tUlteu
Copper. but waE intended 10 cover transac-
tions in Amalgamated Copper and Union
Pacific. and was closed prior to the date
Of the big loan.
After Proof of Pool.
Late in the afternoon a new tack was
taken. witnesses from many banks and
trust companies being called to identify
transcripts of pages from books showing
United Copper Company accounts, SO that
the books, piled many feet high near the
jury box. need not be kept BY these &C
counts proof of pool is expected to he
established and the transcripts. made by
J. F Fernsler, expert accountant for the
government will figure in the effort.
Mr. Wise showed at one time that he
contemplated bringing contempt proceed
ings against Otto Heinze & Co. He has
noi been able 10 get all the books relating
10 what may be pool transa ctions
Through Schultze he tried to get in evil
dence that the subpoena for all the books
of the firm had not been obeyed. Nj
Stanchield objected Judge Hough, sus-
tanning him. said at best this line of evil
dence would be laying the foundation for
contempt proceedings. and hence was sec
ondary. Mr.. Wise said that that was his
object.
r
part of the day The government pros
ocutor hammered at him pool-wise. but
what he did not succeed in evadng by de-
NAL or lack Of recollection. he was saved
from answering by objections from Mr..
Stanchfield. sustained by the court This
was especially SO in the afternoon.
Judge Adnnonishes Counsel.
II was Just before adjournment for the
f,f-
discoura cement. Judge Hough called the
counsel before him and said:
''l'or two days I have sat now listening
20 testimony that ! thought would be con-
nected with the defendant 1t has not
There has been no connection established
IN the future the questions asked will have
10 bring in the relationship of the defend
amt
Judge Hough then turned abruptly and
left the courtroom. Throughout the two
DAYS Mr. Wise had been frequently on the
point of introducing evidence which he
thought would establish his case, but he
was az frequently blocked because of tech
meal objections. As result what seemed
TO have been a conclusive case, we'll pre-
pared and well conducted, had 20 be re-
formed and replanned.
The government prosecutor was not. how
y.
The failure of Judge Hough to throw out
the overcertifcation charge is looked on as
a refusal to do SO, and the testimony Of
Schultze in the afternoon and his evasion
Of questions and the decisions against an |
ewerinE were said TO establish the fact /
that there would be a period, following the |
new tack. when whatever had been con- /
ceaIed would be brought out.
Control of United Copper.
Schultze acknowledged soon after he re |
sumed his testimony from where he left off /
the day before that hundreds of thousands |
~ dollars had been paid to the Heinzes in
dividends on United Copper on January go /
1885,, and on April % 1907. Mr. Wise also
got i'm evidence that the stock was con- /
frolled by the Heinzes Among the checks /
paid 10 + Augustus Heinze as quarterly
dividends OLE April - were one for $3.50 100 |
aud one for si42.@59 The checks and others |
70 relatives. including the brothers, were
deposited on the same day 10 Schultze's |
account
The witness said that he acted as a sort |
of clearing house or trustee for certain
holders of United Copper Mr. Wise pro-
duced a memorandum book which Schultze
had kept in the foregoing transactions
The witness acknowledged that he had
kept the book. but said the entries referred
10 transactions Of the years 1905 and 1896.
II was sidetracked a. irrelevant
Mr. Wise then brought forth brown
paper memorandum. with Insiders -nited
copper Company in Schultze's writing AZ
The top. The paper showed that F.
Augustus Heinze held 1865 shares of
United Copper in 1905 Schultze could not
remember when the memorandum was