New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-07-10
Will Appeal to District Attorney
Whitman to Prosecute Con-
molly for Perjury in
Complaints.
BASED ON HIS ADMISSION
Friends of Accused Justice Hope
to Shatter the Case Against
Him Enough to Justify
Themselves in Exon
Grating Him.
POLITICS IN EXAMINATION


Committeeman in 1909-Fails
to Discredit His Percent
age Letter" Story.
tFror: STAFF Correspondent Of TIE Tribunel
Albany, July 9.-Friends Of Supreme
Court Justice Daniel F. Cohalan on the
combined Senate and Assembly Judi
ciary committees planned late tonight
10 institute a counter attack in his be-
half, which. they believe, will shatte-
the case against him badly enough so
that they can contend they would be
justified in generating him.
This move, which was developed only
within the final hour Of the cross exam
ination of John A. Connolly. the JUS
tees accuser, in the Senate chamber
tonight, Is to make an appeal to Dis
trict Attorney Whitman to prosecute
Connolly for perjury, and to base that
appeal on the ground that Connolly ad-
mitted on the witness stand that ho
had sworn falsely in the original COM
plants of his contemplated actions
against Cohalan for the return Of the
$3,940 55, and, later Of the $4,000 note,
about which the case centres.
Such a step, under the initiative Of
the Tammany members OF the commit
tee from New York City districts, would
carry with .it a complicated criss-cross
OF politics. but both the Tammany
members Of the committee here and
John B. Stanchheld. Justice Cohalan's
lawyer and prominent in the Tammany
organization, frankly and openly pulled
politics into the case in questioning
Connolly tonight.
Brings in Politics.
Mr.. Stanchfeld esta bIished, first, the
fact that Connolly served on the fusion
committee Of 1909 in the New York
City election. He went along from that
TO Connolly's moves in 1910 when he
was seeking Democratic appointment
as corporation tax commissioner. He
spoke OF Cohalan's service as Grand
Sachem Of Tammany, and asked Con-
molly IL his sudden demand for the re-
turn Of the $3.50 - in 1909 was not
predicated on the belief that he held
the whip hand over Cohalan because
OF the latter's position in Tammany as
opposed to Connolly's temporary posi-
ton in the fusion committee.
Connolly's direct evidence as 10 the
- per cent payments TO Cohalan re-
malned at the end Of his second day on
the witness stand practically un-
touched. and while Mr.. Stanchheld bad
gered the witness 10 a considerable ex-
tent. he could do nothing 10 change the
aspect Of that direct charge.
The counter move Of attacking Con-
molly on the ground of perjury opened
UP as a possibility at the night ses-
sion. when Mr.. Stanchfeld began 70
heckle the witness on the suit he
threatened against Justice Cohalan in
1909. when he sought the return Of the
S3, $40 81 from the justice.
The lawyer brought up the ledger OF
the Victor Heating Company, from
which the half page, said TO have con-
tained the Cohalan account, had been
cut out. and after long verbal fencing
with Connolly, got the admission from
the witness that the entire account had
been written in the ledger in January,
1909, although the entries ran back 20
1904 and ended in 1906.
The letter which Connolly's lawyers
sent TO Justice Cohalan on January Il.
1909. came up next. and the statement
put upon the books in January, 1909.
showing the alleged. Indebtedness OF
Cohalan TO the Victor Heating Com
pany." was analyzed by the lawyer.
"If YOU paid Cohalan these moneys
pursuant TO an agreement you made
with him, in which you promised TO
nav him those amounts, and did pay
him those amounts, and afterward put
upon YOUR books. two or three years
later. a statement that he was in
debted TO you for that amount. that
statement was false, incontestibly,
wasn't it?" Mr.. Stanchfeld demanded.
Doesn't Like False
Connolly squirmed and twisted
around. trying to get away from Mr..
Stanchfield's analysis. The badness OK
the word false" bothered him, but the
lawyer insstently repeated it,
You are under oath" said Mr..
Stanchfield. II ask you again If that
statement was predicated upon false
account that you put in your ledger?'
1T was predicated upon the false ac-
count that was placed in the ledger"
Connolly finally answered. and Mr.
stanchfield rested on that phase OF the
matter for a few moments.
Counsel went back to the question OF
perjury later by repeating from the
record the final question put by Mr.