New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-03

serving the Jewish New Year. on this
statement OF the situation, when Judge
| Cullen said he thought the court should
not press counsel too far and he was
inclined to grant the motion Tor ao-
journment, as usual. the other mem
bers of the court agreed with him.
This adjournment will give the defence
much needed time to perfect its case.
Apologi to MIR. Fuller.
At the beginning Of the session ISL
dor Kresel, of counsel for the mana
gers. made an apology to Melville b.
Fuller and the firm of Harris q ruler
for his insinuations that their fpoohs
had been doctored in certain entries IN
the Sulzer speculative account. lie
said:
"since Mr.. Fuller testified counsel
for the managers and experts employed
bv them have had submitted to them
various books and papers OF the rrih
of Harris &, Fuller A careful exami-
nation has been made of the same ana
Of the entry in question and Of corre-
snonding entries referring to the same
item made in other books OF Harris
& Fuller.
"From such examinations the mana
gers are convinced that the entry III
the blotter was made in the regular
course Of business Of the hrm OF mar
r,s g. Fuller on December 80. l9lZ'
notwithstanding the difference IN
handwriting appearing in said entry
and the position of the entry al the
bottom Of the page.
1.-THE erasures appearing on the pase
in the blotter containing SAID ehuy
have been satisfactorily explained as
ara sures Of totals written in lead pen
ell in the regular course OF oooh-
keeping before the entry In question:
was made on such page.
1.-THE board Of managers are gao "
make this explanation publicly IN or
der to remove. any misconception tha'
NAV have been created concerning the
correctness Of the entry by the request
~ counsel made to the court that the
hotter in question be submitted lot
examination by experts.
Rules Out Sareeky Talk.
Austen G. Fox, Of the Sulzer counsel
tben asked TO have stricken from the
rocord certain matter read into II re-
garding testimony given by sarecky
before the Frawley committee that ne
had asked the Governor for the place
90 denortation agent. Fox argued that
this was hearsay evidence, unsup-
ported by anything corropora'lVe'
Judge Cullen ruled in his favor. he
stimulated. though, that the counsei TOT
Governor Sulzer must put Sarecky on
tho stand as their witness. Now the
prosecution, on INSTRUMENTATION VIII
he in a position to attack Sarecky y
testimony. which it might not do II he
were the managers witness.
Judge Cullen did not rule for the de-
fence when Mr.. Fox sought 10 nave
striken from the record the statement
90 Jobn Boyd Gray that just before
Colwe,l the missing broker disap-
neared he had told the witness that he
was going to Albany to see Sulzer.
Fox argued that this was hearsay and
incompetent, but Judge Cullen said 1t
did not prove anything except that the
managers had not been able to get Col
well.
"It proves nothing, perhaps, to your
honor's trained legal mind said Fox,
"but what 1t might prove to myself
and others is beyond my capacity to
foretell."
But Judge Cullen let it stand. Next
Fox said that he wished formally to
nresent a motion to strike out Articles
4 Z. and 8, but did not care to
areue that because OF the position
Judge Cullen had just taken that such
matters must be left to the end OF the
case. Fox did this, he explained. only
so II might not be understood that the
defence acceded to any notion that
there was evidence enough presented
10 warrant an adverse verdict under
those articles.
Must Wait, Court Rules.
1.-The court does not wish to appear
To rule on your motions in advance,
said President Cullen, but the judg-
ment Of the court on another question
practically disposes of some OF the OBJ
iections of the general character OF
which you have spoken. That is TO
saw. that what is proved here in this
case. and if 1t is proved, is that there
is any ground 10 impeach this re-
spondent; that has got to go to the
final determination Of the court, and
think that statement clearly controls
the disposition of the present motion"
Fox said he did not wish TO seem to
argue against the ruling, but this stu
alton seemed little different from
that i'm the first case, where, decision on
q grave constitutional question was re-