New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-24

| posit?'
yes. but that was after the loan hao
been agreed upon"
at that meeting of the exsoulNe
committee was not that loan approved
on condition that a deposit be mace ~
the Savoy Trust Company
yes; a deposit Of Sse,Ooo.
was one made
Yes"
by whom
BY the city -,
was any other deposit mace eN''''
by the city,"
NO" zi.
"D,dnt Cummins say the city deposit
was the one which was to onset inc
loans?"
yes"
The eight banks represented on tne
stand lent to Cummins. the Cun,"''"o
ero,,n and the Cummins companies
total NJ $3.50. 40 between May ~ anu
November ii. 1910. and in this Same
period received city deposits asSie
eating S1.1OO.OOO. OF these loans ohiS
s5O OOo WAS paid back before the Gar
raqie Trust and the vast fabric OF pro-
motions dependent upon ii collapsed
hr,u,,.nt on Admission OF 6Vioeneo'
Tho argument on the admission oil 81.
tbis evidence constituted the featuie
~ ,,,ornirv session. Ex-Vice-Preslueh.
| Tor,e ~ the National Reserve Bank hau
.,Lor tho stand, and in answer 10 M
| Clarl,,e questions had testified thaI "o
bad had a conversation with Cumn,'h'
3, Nav 1910. with regard to loans "he"
the storm broke. 49,.
Rotb steu.r and John b. stsnchheid' tne
aefendant's lawyers, got to their Feet WIZ"
obiections that such testimony was
relevant. immaterial and hearsAy oil" NV
binding upon the defendant.
| "Your honor" began Mr.. Clark ue-
sire TO prove there was regular s'e'''"
in vogue by which this defendant a. ~
the case OF Robin and the Northern Da"H'
! had persuaded banks TO lend money w
Cu,nmins. that the Northern Bank trans
! act,on was only one OF series or acts
perrormed with a single idea in View-the
nlacjnQ OF the funds OF the city AT the
disposal of the Cummins gang we pur-
pose 10 show these transactions loon
place In April, May, June, August sep
tember and October OF the same year
1910 In which the act specified In the IN
/ dictment took place"
The argument on this point for the de-
fence was left to Mr. stanchheld, as In
the case Of all questions OF law which
| he tai
| stanchfeld said to the court:
| II object to the testimony on the ground
that the conversation between the wit
ness and Cummins was not had in the
presence of the defendant, and is there
| fore hearsay and incompetent In this
| case, moreover. the defendant IL IN no
way a party 10 the collateral Transaction.
| There is confessedly no proof that the
defendant. HYDE knew that Cummins
was applying 10 the National Reserve
/ Bank for q loan"
IF you mean by confessedly' that the
prosecution admits it has no proof, in
terrupted Mr. Clark. that ia not So"
"It must be admitted by the prosecu-
ton" said Mr.. Stanchheid.
/ Then Mr. Clark took UP the argument
again. saying:
But II exactly what Cummins said
would be done with regard TO city de-
posts was done, that surely is sufficient
| circumstantial evidence Of the defend
ants part In the transaction We arc
forced in a case OF bribery TO 20 the eI-
IRENE limit in furnishing circumstantial
evidence. We are confident We can sat
isfy any jury before we get through that
collusion existed between the defendant
and Cummins.'
Cirounstsntial Evidence Ruled In.
objection overruled," almost whis-
| pered the court.
! Mr.. Jones went on 20 say that his bank
had lent Cunmins Rsichmann Moore
and Condor no 600 each and $4,000 to ell
four together. making 10000 IN all. This
was on June /, and on the same day his
bank received q city deposit OF reo,oco
But when 1t came 10 what Cummins had
said to him about city deposits whom he
applied for ths loans, Mr.. Jones was an
other one whose testimony on the stand
Yesterday differed somewhat from that
he gave the grand jury eishtsen months
ago.
"Cummins discussed with me" said the
banker, sending buslness TO ia from out
of town banks with which he was con-
neetsd, and he also stated that he could
use some influence I'm getting US city
money"
How much city money did he think he
could get for your"
THE best Of my reeoAeotioa 10 that the
amount indicated was 500. ec0-he thought
no could influence g deposit up TO 10000. =
Clark showed him his grand jury testi-
mony, but the witness said he thought II
was incorrect on this point. Clark asked
hin, IL he had not testified then that Cum
minis had said he would get him city
money in return for the loans. He could
get no admission from him, however.
Jones stuck TO yesterdays version, al
though he admitted his recollection OF the
conversation was not better now than u
had been eighteen months ago. On the
cross-exarninRtion he said he had never
spoken to Hyde In his lhs, and that he
bod nassad the loans on their security,