New-York tribune., 1912-03-18
70 AIM GUNS At SEGAL
Suuar Mems Counsel Calls HIM
"WiIdCat" Promoter.
THREE WEEKS FOR TRIAL
Defence Will Begin Objections
Now to Introduction OF
Parsons's Letters.

The trial Of John f. Parsons tne Asou
former counsel for the American oUea'
Hsnning Company; Washington D. mn
.s president Of the corporations ArIiiuA
banner its treasurer, and George IL Pi"
der. one OF its directors, who are ciiai Sc
with conspiracy to restrain lhters'a'e
trade. viii be resumed this morning
bore Judge Hand and jury in the Oni'eu
States District Court
II was learned yesterday that the hope
expressed by prosecution and detence 10
havA the case tried in two weeks couiu
mot be realized, and IL was admitted tna'
AZ least a third week would be neeoed oe-
Sora ths fury could be asked for its YER
Dict
The prosecution has thus far taken four
dsvs for its case, but most OF that uine
was consumed in introducing papers most
AZ which were merely marked for ldenu-
6oation and are still to be read 10 the
fury and explained by the testimony OF
ths many witnesses under subpoena lot the
government. The indications yesterday
pointed TO a practical certainty that 'ne
government would not be able to complete
this task in less than weeks time
The defence has not been outlined yet
hut ne I.ancey Nicoll. Of counsel for the
Attendants, has taken every opportunity
tb,t offered itself during the last week 70
intimate what the character Of his case
will be.
He said that he would show up Adolph
sesal. the Philadelphia financier' whose
loan of S1,25O,OO0 from the American
sugar Refining Company formed the basis
Of the governments charges, as WiIocat
promoter and a schemer
The building of the Philadelphia plant
Of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Com
psnv Mr.. Nicoll said, would be shown TO
have been planned deliberately with
visw Of compelling the American Sugar
Compapy TO buy the plant or face dan
eerous competitor. And, finally he woulo
show. he said. that segal was the man
who looked and schemed for the loan ana
not his clients, as the government as
serted.
lively debate between counsel may
he expected early this week. when the
Government will offer to read to the jury
letters bearing upon the loan at Issue
which passed between John e. Parsons
and Henry o. Havemeyer as well as other
officers Of the American Sugar Refining
Attorney. has offered all the letters ne
could unearth for Identification, and prom
ised to offer them in evidence.
II IS understood that counsel for the de-
fence will object to the introduction OF
those letters. on the ground that they were
privileged matter, having been written to
officers of a corporation by the general
counsel for the company, Mr.. Parsons
at he
writing.
The governments contention. 1t was in
t,matsd. will be that Mr.. Parsons was
not only counsel for the American Sugar
Refining Company, but throughout the
Segal loan transaction also acted as one
of the corporations directors. To sus-
tain this contention the government has
introduced in evidence the minutes of
case brought in the Chancery Court in New
Jersey in which the same defendants were
involved. The Pennsylvania Sugar Refn-
ing Company, which as result Of the
loan to Segal was controlled for years by
the American Sugar Refining Company,
sued that corporation for an accounting
Of possible profits that might have ac-
crued to the complainant II its new plant
ct Philadelphia had been permitted to
operate.
John T. Parsons was witness in the
case. and his letters were offered in evil
dence. The same objection as now antici-
pated was raised by counsel for the Amer
lean Sugar Company, but Vice-Chancellor
Walker held that the letters were written
by a director as we'll as by the corpora
tion's counsel and were therefore admissi-
BILE
The Knight case, which was decided by
the United States Supreme Court in favor
of the American Sugar Refining Com
pany, will also play an important part in
the defence as indicated by Mr.. Nicoll.
The highest court held in 1926 that the
ACQUISITION Of stock for the control Of the
Knight sugar refinery by the defendants
did not constitute an illegal act
Mr. Nicoll said repeatedly in the course
OF this trial that the defendants had re-
lied upon the decision in the Knight case
in their transaction with Segal and the
Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company,
and never considered the transaction now
charged by the government as violation