The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-16
SURPRISE SPRUNG
BY CIRCUIT DEFENCE
Baldwin Doesn't CrOss-Exam-
inc Stalker Despite Ad-
verse Testimony.
ACT AMAZES CROPSEY

Edwin J. Stalker. who was ~vice-pres-
ident Of the Union Bank at a salary OF
s10,0 600 a year when ex-Cfty Comp
troIIer Grout. now on trial for perjury
before County Judge Ie wis and a jury
in Brooklyn. signed the false bank re-
mort OF March 25, 1910, finished his tes-
timony on direct examination yesterday
and was promptly excused, stephen c.
Baldwin, counsel for Grout. announcing
that there would be no cross-examina-
ton.
This announcement created profound
surprise. Just why the defence chose
70 excuse Stalker without questioning
him did not appear. but there Ia no
doubt that the decision surprised every
one save the defence Itself. District
Attorney Cropsey said
"But YOU ~subpmnaed him. ] assumed
YOU wanted to ~cross-examine him
II was subppnaed by the defendant
for the whole week. Stalker said TO
Judge Lewis.
81 know all that said Mr.. Baldwin
and repeated y
aa I said before"
Stalkcr's testimony had shown that
he was with the JnIon Bank as Vice
president from the time OF Its reopenlng
on August II. 1908, to the date or It's
second collapse. April 4. 1910. During
that period M demonstrated with circuit
about loans made by the bank ana so
licited by II, repeatedly called CIRCUITS
attention to tho banks condition. so he
testified. and ut one time actually
handed In his resignation, but was pre-
vailed upon TO stay.
In the light OF Mr.. Stalker's testimony
II had seemed apparent that MT Grout
could not have signed and sworn TO the
statement OF March rs on April ? with
out knowing that IL contained an over
statement Of assets. and as Mr.. Cronsey
had bent every effort TO show guilty.
knowledge" Il was naturally expected
that Mr.. Baldwin would cross-examine
extensively In an effort to weaker or
destroy the force Of Stalkers story.
When Mr.. BALDWIN was asked after
adjournment whether he cared to give
his reasons for not examining stalker
he replied Not at this time. lie
added that these reasons would appear
later on in the trial.
In taking up the Ellsworth J. Bogart
matter after Stalker had been excused
Mr.. cropsey tried TO show hat Grout
not only awore to worthless items IN
the statement OF March 20 hut that
worthless Items were actually duplicated
in that report.
The Rogart Item involves a note for
100. which was given to tho Union
Ranks predecessor. the old Mechanics
and Traders, in the time OF David A.
Sullivan, in exchange for bank stock.
When Mr.. Grout took charge he de-
ma r.ied a settlement. Soon afterward
Bogart transferred all his property TO
his wife and son. Several witnesses
testified that this had been brought 10
Mr.. Grout's attention.
II was finally arranged "a Bogart
should turn back into the bank the
stock he had secured on the note. but
in the meantime IL had deprecated In
value SO that IL was worth only 5000.
Bogart confessed judgment for the bal
ance. hut II was never satisfied. In the
face OF this transaction Rogarts note
for the full amount was carried as an
asset in the false bark statement and
the stock he had turned In was also
carried.
Mr.. Cropsey holds that the carrying
Of the note and the stock both was actu-
ally a duplication Of assets. As for the
balance which remained unpaid on tho
note. he claims that that was utterly
worthless and should never have been
carried as a COOL and collectibic" AS
set.
Mr.. BALDWIN sought to show on cross
examination that the transfers OF prop
critics by Bogart were Illegal and that
Mr.. Grout had been SO appriscd. An
admission TO this effect from ore Of
the witnesses was weakened on redirect,
Mr.. Cropsey showing that no effort had
ever been made 20 set the transfers
aside as n preliminary step toward salts
faction q: judgment
Rogart was one OF nine directors OF
the Old Mechanics and Traders Bank
who !ndorsed an accommodation note
for David A. sullivan am are NOW
being sued for the full amount, $4,000
The trial will go on to-day.