The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-05-26
COHALAN EXPLAINS
NOTE OF CONNOLLY'S
Justice Admits He Returned
1t When u Suit Was
Threatened.
DENIES PROMISING A JOB
Contractors Lawyer. Who Drew
the 81. 900 Note. Makes
a Statement.
DENIES PROMISING A JOB

a Statement.
A sta tement purporting 10 have been
made by one John A. Connolly. pub
| l!shed in the New York World. that
Daniel r. Cohalan. now a Justice of
the Supreme Court, had exacted IA note
| for 81 600 from Connolly as a price for
political Job on April g. 1911, was
denounced as utterly false and con
| temptible" BY Justice Cohalan yesterday y
| and declared 10 be beyond the knowl-
edge OF tho attorney FOR Connolly who
! drew and delivered the note.
An assertion that the note had been
given upon your express promise to
procure him n position" was contained
IN letter written to the Justice by
| Lyman A Warren. attorney for Con-
molly. under date OF May 1s. 1t is ad-
| mitted that the note and an accom-
panying estoppel affidavit were returned
then. but the Justice supplements what
has been printed about the AFFAIR with
a narration of his declarations made
at the time. The explanation OF the
Justice Is as follows:
Justice COhaInn's Statement.
After I received the letter that Mr.
Warren wrote me. the sense OF which !
perfectly understood, I decided to return
| to Mr.. Warren as the attorney for a for
| mer friend and client a prom'ssory note
which was OF no pecuniary value 70 me
| because l did not expect the note TO be
paid and accepted II only as an admission
by Connolly that statements no had pre-
v.ousy made were unfounded.
When returned the note and Con-
nolly's afYida,1t TO Mr. Warren l eaid TO
Mr.. Warren that the statement contained
in Mr.. Warrens letter TO me and there
imputed 10 Connolly that this note was
given upon promise to procure a po-
s!tion for Connolly was false and without
any foundation whatever
II told Mr., Warren that there never had
been a moment after receiving the note
when I would not willingly have returned
1t. since the note AMI affidavit had simply
meant TO me the admission by Connolly
that he did owe me money. and owed ~
centainly. ana that prior statements ot his
to the contrary had been made without
ustification.
"Of course the suggestion that the note
was given by Connolly as consideration
for any promise by me 20 seek or obtain
position for him. public or private, II
utterly false. and Il IL so contemplate
tina. DO not care 10 notice Il further
An effort was made to obtain .
further explanation from tho Justice AZ
his home last night, but ne eaid: Il
have made this statement: II 10 ali I
care 20 say at this time"
Connollyss Lawyer Denies.
The statement made by Alfred r.
Cruikshank. who was once Connolly's
attorney. Is as follows:
II acted as Mr.. Connoliys attorney In
giving the note for $4,000 and the accom-
pany.ng affidavit 10 Daniel F. Cohalan.
who was at that time Il practising lawyer
In New York city. drew tho affidavit
that Mr., Connolly swore TO- and ] per
sonallv delivered the note and the afY'dav!t
10 Mr.. Cohalan. | understood then. and
do now. that the sole consideration for
that note was money claim ~ Mr..
Cohaian against Mr. Connolly.
AS part OF tina, transaction there
was. so far as l know. no promise nado
by Mr.. Cohaian 10 Mr., Connolly 20 obtain
for him any political or other appoint
ment or position. directly or indirectly.
nor was the note given or received on
any such condition"
Returned $4,000 Note.
According to the New York World
John a. Connolly. once head Of tho
Victor Heating Company. through his
counsel. ex-Judge Lyman r. Warren,
induced Justice Daniel +. Cohalan 20
return TO Connolly note for $4,000
dated April 5. 1911. which was before
the Justice had ascendsd the bench.
Statements purporting 10 have been
L. All ~
found Yesterday. were that during the
yean of 1904. 1908 and 1906. IN the
early part Of Mayor McClellsns first
term. Cohalan exercised his political in.
fiuence TO get city contracts for tho
Victor Heating Company. demanding
and obtaining therefor 55 per cent. Of
the net profits of the work thus So
cured from city departments.
Connolly ASSERTS that during the
years mentioned Cohalan received as
his share the sum OF sS.90455. The pay
ments were made by Connolly 10 Coha.
Ian UP TO the end OF the year 1908, when
a difference arose between them. Coha-
Ian asserting that there was 800 moro
due There was an argument and Con-
molly himself declares he was told that
Mr.. Cohalan was not tho only person
sharing in tho pronta of about $1,000
a year.
The refusal. according 70 Connolly.
resulted in a severance Of relations be-
tween tho mon: tho Victor Heating
Company lost out on city contracts
John r. Ahearn was then borough
President and John T. Oakley wns Com
missioner OF tho Department of Water
supply. Gas and ElectTicity.
Complain 10 e. r.. Murphy.
Connolly declares the situation he.
came 30 aggravated that IN January,
1909, no consulted Alfred H. Cr.,ikshank.
n lawyer According to Connolly Mr.
Cruikshank Immediately made n do
mand for tho $3.004 IS. hut before that
was done six men. all Irish Americans,
called upon Charles +. Murphy to COM
plain of Mr.. Cohalan's conduct. Tho
names given for the six are Patrick i.
McNulty. n real estate operator; Peter
j. Brennan, general contractor and