New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-28
LETS OUT CO-DEFENDANTS
John E. Parsons Says He DID Not
Discuss SegaI Loan with Them.
EXPLAINS MANY LETTERS
Sugar Trust Lawyer Will Com
plete Testimony To- day-Court
to Sum Up morrow.

10 Sum Up TO- lOliu"'
TIE direct examination of John 7. Par
sons. long chief counsel of the Sugar Trust
who was called to testify in his own de-
fence in the United States District Court
on Tuesday afternoon, consumed the whole
court session yesterday, and he was cross
examined for but a few minutes before
Judge Hand announced adjournment until
this morning.
The few questions which were put TO Mr..
Parsons by Henry a. Wise, United States
Attorney. showed merely how detailed the
cross-examination of the chief defendant
in the case will be to-day and the predlc-
ton was made that 1t would occupy most
of the day. The defence expects, however
20 rest its case with the completion oil t"s-
tinony by Mr. Parsons, and the prosecu-
ton will not call any important witness III
rebutta of the defence. Tomorrow mas
been set aside by Judge Hand for the sum
ming up by both sides, and the case may
20 to the jury al noon on SATURDAY aIter
Judge Hands instruction OF the jury OH
the law governing the case
De Lancey Nicon. Of counsel for the de-
fence. examined Mr. Parsons for over four
hours During m, st Of that time the aged
lawyer read letters which had passed oe-
tween him and the other principal hgures
in the loan Of 81. $4,000 10 Adolph Segal by
which, the government charges. the Amerl-
can Sugar Refining Company secured con-
troll over its prospective Pennsylvania rival
and kept the new sugar refinery at Phll"-
delpha closed during the life of the loan
Each letter was explained by Mr.. Par
sons. as il helped to refresh his memory
and his general attitude yesterday was me
same as on the first day, one OF SLOW de-
Uberate weighing, yet ready responsive
ness.
In reply TO a question of his counsel Mr.
Parsons said that ne was familiar with the
Sherman antitrust law in 1858, the time OF
the loan transaction, and that he had mace
a special study of it.
This was i'm connection with the Knight
case, in which he represented the Amerl-
can Sugar Refining Company. Mr.. Parsons
added that he had taken a considerable
part in preparing the brief which was sub
mitted to the United States Supreme Court
on the matter.
Mr. NiCoH wanted 10 know whether Mr..
Parsons had discussed with the officers
of his company the question Of the legality
of the SegaI loan transaction, but Mr.. Wise
objected. and Judge Hand sustained him.
Mr.. Parsons Explains Letters.
Step by step Mr.. Nicoll then took up the
evidence offered by the government, and
handing TO the witness the various letters
already read, made him read them again
TO the jury. The dates on the letters ana
their subject were used to refresh Mr. Par
sons recollection. and in every instance
he added explanations to the letters whch
he had written or received.
The loan. charged with having been
step in the conspiracy to restrain interstate
trade was always referred 10 as the ks
sci loan. Mr.. Parsons said. and at various
times he laid emphasis on the words that
Gustav E. Kissel was Sesals agent in the
matter and did not act for the American
Sugar Refining Company.
Al the time of the loan. Mr. Parsons said,
he had no talk with any officer of his com
pany except the late II. o. Havemeyer'
and he made the positive statement thdt
he had never talked about II with any
OF his CO-defendants in this casC-N aShlnS-
ton b Thomas, George II. Frazier and Ar
thur Bonner.
meant by saying in his letter TO II. O.
Havemeyer. dated May 81, 1894, that the
thing to do with the loan was TO nurse 1t
along" and the witness replied:
Il had told Mr.. kisseI that Segal had
obtained 81 $4,000 OF the sugar company's
money and l said he had no right to use
that money in any way that was harmful
10 the sugar company. Although this was
cases. it seemed TO me most reasonable ;hat
the sugar companys own money should
not be received by Segal and then used in
a way detrimental to the company. The
tenor of this correspondence was TO keep
that transaction going according to the
contract. which provided that the money
should not be paid till October.
AS to Offers to Repay Loan.
Mr.. Nicon went on TO the time when
SegaI began 70 make offers of repaying the
loan. He asked Mr.. Parsons about his con
ference with Thomas b. Harmed, Sesals
LAWYER. at which the witness had expressed
his desire for some other guarantee than
segaI's that the loan would be repaid in
full before the refinery was to be operated.
Mr. Parsons said that the reason for this
lay in his having learned by that time that
segaTs word could not be relied upon; that
he was a promoter and that he had built
the Camden refinery to sell it TO the Sugar
Trust. and had the same idea with the
Philadelphia refinery.
This was the first matter to be taken up
by Mr.. Wise in his brief ross-examinaton
of Mr. Parsons lie asked If he had known
at the time Kissel came TO him first TO talk
about the Segal loan that the Camden
refinery had been strike" The witness
answered that he did not think the matter
had entered his mind at that time.
The theory advanced by the defence that
Segal was trying to hold up the Sugar
Trust into buying his new refinery was APP
parently the chief subject aimed at by Mr..
Wise in his questions TO the witness. lie
took up the record of the testimony Mr..
Parsons gave in 1907 I'm the Chancery Court
in New Jersey in a litigation growing out
of the same transaction, and began TO read
the al swers then given by the witness and
compare them with those given at this
trial. Court was adjourned, however, at
this point