New-York tribune., 1913-05-26
Note Of No Pecunisry Value.


now elapsed"
Note Of No Pecunisry Value.
Judge Cohalan's statement reads rs
follows
After received the letter that Mr..
Warren wrote me. the sense Of which
perfectly understood, decided to return
to Mr. Warren, as the attorney for
former friend and client promissoiy
note which was Of no pecuniary value 10
me. because ! did not expect the note 10
be paid and accepted II only as an ad-
mission by Connolly that statements he
had previously made were untounded.
when / returned the note and Con-
nollys affidavit TO Mr.. Warren said
| 10 Mr.. Warren that the statement con-
tained In Mr. Warren's letter TO me and
there imputed to Connolly that this note
was given upon a promise To secure a
position for Connolly was false and
without any foundation whatever
IL told Mr.. Warren that there never
| had been moment after receiving the
note when | would not Willingly have re-
turned II. since the note and affidavit had
simply meant TO me the admission by
I Connolly that he did owe me money. ana
owed ii certainly. and that prior state
ments OF his to the contrary had been
made without justification.
"Of course. the suggestion that the note
was given by Connolly as considers
| ton for any promise by me TO seek or
/ obtain a position for him. public or pri-
vate 81 utterly false. and II is so con-
a a
further"
Justice Cohalan's references 10 state
ments previously made by Connolly
| which he brands as unfounded. are con-
nected with claims made by Connolly
for s3si0 55. which he alleged were due
| him through certain dealings between
the Victor Heating Company and Mr.
| Cohalan. The allegations Of Connolly
according 10 the published reports OF the
complaint. were that during the years
| 1904 to 1906. inclusive. Justice Cohalan
through his associations with Boss
/ Murphy and other Tammany Hall lead
ers. secured for tine Victor Heating Com
pany certain work for the city. from the
net proceeds OF which TO the company
he was TO receive 30 per cent. This. II IS
said. amounted 10 1890 81.
Later disagreements. ~ is said. between
the two men ea-ly in 1909 caused de-
mand on Connolly's part through the ad-
vice OF his attorney at the time. Alfred
b. Cruikshank. for return OF the money
paid Failure 10 secure the money led
on March II. 1903 10 the service on Judge
Cohalan Of a complaint 1t IS declared.
The matter never came to a hearing.
however. according to reports. the amount
! In question being paid by Mr.. Cohalan.
on the advice. II is said. Of Boss" Muir
ply. through Mr.. Cruikshank to Mr. Con-
molly The note and affidavit accompany
/ ing IT, declaring that there are no de-
| fences thereto and no counter claims or
effects against the same TO the knowledge
Of the deponent. Mr.. Connolly" bear the
date OF April 8. 1911. and were prepared
| by Mr. Cruikshank.
Mr.. Cruikshank said last night:
II acted as MIR. Connollys attorney IN
giving the note for 1900 and the accom-
! panying affidavit To Mr. Daniel +. Coha-
Ian. who was az that time q practising
! lawyer in New York City. ! drew the
| affidavit that Mr.. Connolly swore to. and
/ personally delivered the note and the
affidavit 10 Mr.. Cohalan.
| II understood then. and do now. that
| the sole consideration for that note was
n money claim Of Mr.. Cohalan against
Mr.. Connolly. AS a part Of that transac-
! ton there was, so far as | know. no
promise made by Mr.. Cohalan To Mr..
| Connolly TO obtain for him any political
or other appointment or position. directly
or indirectly. nor was the note given or
received on any such condition"