The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-07-11
HE DENIES CONSPIRACY
Lawyer Says COhalan and
Connolly Alone Knew
All Facts.
BAR REPORT Is CRITICISED
Justices Attorneys Say the
Inquiry Was Not
Thorough.

ALBANY. July 1o.-Alfred H. Csulk-
shank. the lawyer who represented John
A. Connolly In the suit against Supreme
Court Justice Daniel +. Cohalan, was on
the stand at this evenings session Of
the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committees. which are investigating
the charge that Cohalan made Con-
molly pay him for securing city con-
tracts for the Victor Heating Company.
Mr.. Cruikshank said that Connolly
had promised him. when Justice Cohalan
had returned the note that he would
keep silent garding the transaction.
would not let 1t get into the newspapers
and would. in fact. regard the whole
affair as a closed incident.
Counsel for Justice Cohalan were SO
satisfied with MIR. Cruikshank's testi-
mony that they did not even pretend
to cross-examine him. He corrected a
number OF statements made before tho
Bar Association grievance committed
Mr. Cruikshank, who lives at Nyack
but has practised law In New York city
OF the New York City Bar Association.
said he had known Connolly for sixteen
years. hut had never acted for him pro-
fessionally until January 4, 1909. when
he sued Cohalan for the 1890 claimed
to be due to Connollys Arm.
"Is 1t a fact that letters and papers
@1a0neeted with this Cohaian suit on flo
in your office were destroyed last May
and that Mr.. Connolly called in Fehru.
airy last and copied some of these LETT
ters?" inquired Mr. Guthrie. counsel for
the Bar Association.
mo. it is not" he replied But do
know that Mr.. Connolly called at ihe
office and wanted some Of the papers.
turned over the package Of papers in
the case to Connolly and told him To
copy or take what he wanted. provided
he left my own letters, and | do not
know what he took away with him"
, Did you take Mr.. Connolly's state.
ment Of facts without further invest.
cation in commencing the suit against
Cohalan?"
II did take them as sufficient pre-.
limnary to the commencement Of an
! action"
QuestiOn Objected To.
I Didn't you know the facts involved
/ - serious charge against n brother law.
yer?'
| Counsel for Connolly objected to this
question and the objection was sus.
! tanned.
Connolly and Cohalan talked about
old times" continued Cruikshank. "One
moment they seemed to he friendly and
the next moment on the eve Of
quarrel. They spoke OF family rela.
tiOns Of claims Of gratitude and in.
i gratitude. politics. and what one had
done for the other. Mr.. Cohalan insisted
over and over again that the claim WAS
"A wrong one
! q. lie said blackmail. did he not 4.
, He even used the term blackmail Mr..
: Connolly excused himself in way for
urging the claim because he had a large
family. Then Mr. Cohalan said that he
, had large fmily. and SO il went on.
q. What II anything did YOU say when
MIR. Cohalan stated that the claim was
blackmail? ~ ! said In substance that
l would not allow that to be said with
reference to any claim made by our Of
nee. Mr., Cohalan said at once he did
not accuse us oi anythins OF the kind Hs
applied that solely to- Mr Connolly. In
/ the negotiations which followed Cohalan
first offered 81 900 In settlement. which
was refused Then ne offered $1,000, and
TINS ais" was refused The summons and
complaint were served on March To- l'oe'
Complaint prstrOyrd.
q Did YOU advise that neither Connolly
nor Mrs. Connolly should verify the com
plant" A. did.
/ q. Where Is that complaint? A. II
was DESTROYED about May %.