New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-02-08
MONTGOMERY, BANKER,
GUILTY OF LARCENY
Jury ConviCtS Former Head of
Hamilton Bank, Who Was an
Associate of J. 6. Robin.
REBuKE FOR HIS COUNSEL
Rosalsky Resents Criticism OF
Moss-Penalty, Five to Ten
Years in Jail, with More
Indictments Pending.

William X. Montgomery. former rresi-
dent Of the Hamilton Bank and an as
sociate Of Joseph G.. Robin, was con-
yicted Of grand larceny yesterday in
General Sessions. The jury decided that
he stole S4.4OO from the bank on Oc-
tober %, 1907, the day before the bank
closed Four other indictments, two
charging the larceny OF $4,000 and two
charging overcertifcation of checks to
the amount Of $4,000, are still pending
against him.
Montgomery stands convicted is not less
than five nor more than ten years in
state prison. He was prosecuted by
Frank Moss, First Assistant District At
torney. and L. Crosbe Kindclberger.
James w. Osborne. counsel for the de
fence. was rebuked by Judge Rosalsky
after the verdict was rendered for state
ments in his summing UP intended.
Judge Rosalsky said. Ito convince the
Jury that Mr. Moss sought TO wreak his
personal vengeance upon Montgomery,
because the prosecutor made charges Of
bribery against Nathan Nidaver. former
Deputy Attorney General. for whom Mr.
Moss was counsel prior to his appoint
ment on the District Attorneys staff.
Praise fo- Frank Moss.
Throughout the case Mr.. Moss con-
Quoted himself in a way that showed he
was absolutely free from prejudice or
feeling against the defendant" said
Judge RCcalsky.
The prosecution sought 10 show by
the evidence upon which Montgomery
was convicted that he had deliberately
head after office hours on the last day it
was open for business, when he had de-
termined that it would never open again.
IT did close the next day. and later was
merged with the Northern Bank, one Of
the institutions wrecked. it is alleged by
the operations of Joseph g. Robin.
The semblance OF regularity was given
TO Montgomery acts, the prosecution
contended. by the use of dummies, all Of
whom testified against him at his trial.
So careful were his plans laid. said Mr..
Moss, that. although he was indicted for
overcertifcation within a few months
after the bank failed. it was not until
two years later that trace was found OF
his larcenies. and the additional indict-
ments were returned against him.
The 400 for the larceny of which
the banker was convicted. and the sum
Of $500 which is the basis Of one Of
the remaining larceny indictments. were
taken out OF the bank by Montgomery
by means Of notes. which We're dis
counted under MontgOmery's direction at
the fremont branch of the Hamilton
Bank The proceeds Of the one for ST.
400 were ostensibly for the Minford
Realty Company. and the proceeds Of
the $S 500 note were ostensibly for
| Charles Gauvain. acting in connection
with the Bronx Mortgage Company,
which signed that note.
Montgomery controlled both compa-
MES and had managed 10 get on the
| books Of the bank line of discounts for
them. which were secured in the case OF
the Bronx Mortgage Company. appar-
emily by a $4,000 mortgage on vacant
| lots i'm The Bronx. and in the case OF
/ the Mnford Realty Company by fourth
mortgage of S2O0O0 on a piece Of land
on Westchester Creek. which Mr. Moss
described in his summing up as water
and mud"
James s Gross, the son-in-law of
! Gauvain and a confidential man for
! Montgomery. testified that on the day
before the bank failed Montgomery said:
Il don't think the bank will open to-
morrow. and II it does not | am in a
devil of a hole
How Notes Were Discounted.
Thereupon Gross. acting under Mont
gomerys instructions, took the two
notes to the fremont branch TO be 1is-
! counted. he testified. Montgomery had
! tako nrocpcGs n hi :