Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-10-21

1t was on October that Supreme
Court Justice Nathan Blur signed an
order directing that George L. Record
be made a co-defendant to the law
suit titled Belden against Belden.
Many Defendants In Case.
The plaintiff is George G. Belden AMI
the defendants are William and Anne
v. Belden, Charles d. Beldon, 1eorge
B. Salisbury John J. Knox, william
e. Sheffield, the Corn Exchange Bank.
the Riverside aBnk, Charles w. Cole
man, Charles Donohue. Patrick II.
Flynn and George l.. Record the lat
ter having just been added to the list.
Mr.. Record has for some time main
tained an office in New York at 81
Nassau street. room 61S, in addition to
his Jersey City office, Is Exchange
place, but since the courts latest step
in the Belden suit Mr.. Record has not
appeared at his New York office
The process-servers who have been
shadowing Mr.. Record say that he has
not set foot on New York soil since the
order was signed.
Litigation Over WATER Deal.
The litigation is the outgrowth Of a
stupendous water deal in Jersey City.
The deal was closed-that is, the con-
tract between the water people and
Jersey City was completed while Mr..
Record was corporation counsel of Jer-
sey City. The water company is
officially known as the Jersey City
Water Supply Company. That Mr..
Record aided in the contamination OF
the big water deal is shown by the
papers in the case, but 1t did not be-
come known that the former corpora-
ton counsel had $25, 900 and an interest
in the profits that were to accrue, until
the court action was tried.
Persistent demands by the Beldens
for the return of the moneys involved
were ignored oy Mr.. Record, hence thu
step that is now taken.
Favor Trial In New York.
Mr. Records attorneys. Merritt Lane
and Frank B, Vermilya, of Nassau
street, believing that 1t would be better
for Mr.. Record to have a trial before
New York instead of a New Jersey
jury, induced the congressional candi-
date to permit them to file his court
appearance.
Papers in the case of George Belden
against William Belden show that after
William. Belden obtained Henry's stock
in the Jersey City Water Supply Com
pany William sold it to Patrick H.
Flynn on February "a, 1902, for 100000.
OF this Record got $4,000. Record be-
came corporation counsel for Jersey
City on January /, 1902. nearly two
months before the sale.
Hold Company Fraudulent.
The Appellate Division held unani-
mously that the methods by which
William Belden got the water company
interests of Henry We're fraudulent.
| William Belden came into possession
of Henry's stock through an assign
ment and will, drawn up by the late
Charles Donohue, some time justice of
the Supreme Court of New York
County. Regarding the jurist's con-
nection with the case, Justice Clarke
speaks in scathing language.
IF these two instruments, the will
and the assignment" he says. had
lseen drawn by Henry Belden. they
kwould have furnished convincing proof
of his mental unsoundness. But they
were not his work His hand, indeed.
signed them, but they were the product
of two adroit minds nth purpose.
That purpose was % persuade Henry
that he was doing one thing. While In
fact it was another
The testimony of Record himself.
which came before the Appellate Divi-
sion, shows that he was especially ac-
tive in the affairs of William Bslden
and the water company throughout the
period to which Justice Clarke refers.
When Mark NJ Fagan was elected
! mayor Of Jersey City, in 1901. Record
again became especially interested In