New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-26


Then he stepped down from the stand
and went over and sat with his mother.
Incidents and decisions of the utmost
Importance to the fortunes of the former
City Chamberlain crammed the afternoon
and kept the courtroom well filled until
$40 o'clock. The prosecution had rested
lust before the noon recess with the tes-
timony of John V. Smith, Hyde's private
secretary, whom Steuer declined TO cross
examine.
Stanchfield Moves to Dismiss.
John b. Stanchfeld, Hyde's other law
yer, opened the afternoons proceedings
by introducing again the motion to dis
miss the Indictment against his client on
the ground that It did not specify where
in he had benefited by the alleged crime
Both prosecution and defence had sub
mitted briefs to the court on this point at
Justice COTS request when he overruled
the motion temporarily at the beginning
of the trial. Since then the people had
introduced evidence 10 show that Hyde
had borrowed $3.50 from the Carnegie
Trust Company through notes Of John V.
had failed.
Mr.. Stanchheld not only contcndcd yes
terday that the Indictment I'm not specify
ing wherein Hyde had benefited failed 10
set forth a crime, but that IN paying in
terest on the loans mentioned and In
settling the debt the defendant had re-
moved the possibility tlIat these might he
considered payment for favors alleged 10
have been done by him for Cummins and
the Carnegie Trust Company.
He asked Justice Cor to instruct the
Jury to acqut the defendant on the
further ground that Robin was an ac-
complete I'm the crime, If any were COM
mitted, and that the Law prescribed that
the evidence OF acComplces be corrobo-
rated, which had not been done I'm this
case. He said Robins testimony required
confederation on the further ground that
he had been convicted Of a felony. He
continued:
let us look at the record and sec
what It shows Why at the time specl-
fed in the Indictment the Carnegie Trust
Company had 900 Of city money on
deposit. Is II not to Hyde's credit, rather
than crime, II he insisted that Robin
come 10 the rescue Of the Carnegie Trust
Company Is II not TO his credit II he
did everything in his power to keep the
CarneGie Trust Company ahoat with $500,
90 Of city money In itF'
Mr.. Moss contended that the section Of
the Penal Code under which the indict-
ment had been drawn lid not require the
statement in dollars and cents Of the
benefit derived by the defendant; that II
referred 10 the unlawful act Of a public
officer, in which obviously Robin could
not be considered an accomplice legally.
and the state constitution exempted from
punishment briber who would testify to
MS having bribed n public officer.
But I'm the matter OF confederation, he
said, the Robin transaction was only one
Of ? connected line" OF transactions.
every one Of them with the same object
and result, and that OF the evidence Of
this series the court hal ample Corrobora-
ton IN the testimony Of the several bank
ers concerning the coincidence between
the loans by their institutions TO Cum
minis or his friends or companies and the
receipts Of city deposits
Both Mr.. Stanchhcld and Mr. Moss had
argued with vehemence and eloqucncc,
while Justice Cor sat quietly regarding
them over the top Of his desk. 40 i'm
mobile as a statue and with DO more
change Of expression. Mr.. Moss finished
anil an ominous silence