New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-08
Judge Rules Out Mass of
Testimony as to Print
ing Contracts.
MUST SHOW BARNES
KNEW OF SCANDAL
Defence In $4,000 Libel Suit
Expected to Complete Its
Case Next Monday.

contracts
hitching William Barnes TO them. Jus
tice Andrews decided that 10 get the
ecclesiastical records into the $4,000
libel suit which the Colonel is defend
ing IL would have 20 be shown that the
contract was extravagant, that the bills
were fraudulent and that William
Barnes knew Il and used his political
influence 70 give the contract to the
j. B. Lyon Company. That William
Barnes owned quarter OF the stock OF
the Lyon company was not sumclent
proof, Justice Andrews added.
After listening 70 arguments by John
NJ. Bowers, Colonel Roosevelt's counsel,
the decision was announced, with the
warning that IL would apply to every
specific instance of extravaganza and
corruption in printing contracts which
the defence brought forward.
On the general subject Of the admis-
sibility Of the Albany printing evidence
Judge Andrews did not commit himself.
Argument on that point will be heard
on Monday, when M. Bowers Will re-
view the evidence tending TO fssten any
part Of the scandal on the plaintiff.
No More Defence Witnesses.
Summarily halted in their literary
criticisms, the Roosevelt counseI put
on no more witnesses after the court S
decision and announced that their case
would be completed by noon on Monday.
Much depends on the decision made
then as 70 the amount OF the printing
evidence which the jury should con-
slider. The DAYS which the defence has
devoted 20 this phase Of the case, the
bookcases piled high with volumes, the
numerous accounts, both state ana pri-
waite, which have been subppnaed, all
testify TO the value placed by Colonel
affpmnt
TO Justify the statement issued by MN
last summer.
william VI. WINS, counsel for Mr..
Barnes, was the man who called for a
showdown on the printing evidence. IL
was wrong, he thought, 70 let the jury
draw differences from testimony which
might all be stricken out. .,
with all due respect to your honor,
said Mr.. WINS, you may permit sucn
evidence TO 60 In, subject TO motion
70 strike out But you can't wipe out
YESTERDAY anv more than you can Gre
ate tomorrow. You are allowing a
series Of assumptions 70 60 before the
fury which Il is beyond your mental or
moral power to remove from the minds
Of those jurors"
To Hang On to Evidence.
Barnes's letters to Roosevelt and to
Albany and specific contracts, his IN
eterest in the Journal Company and in
the Lyon company, his salary OF
$4,000 which the minute book OF the
Journal Company seems 70 show the
LYON company paid him, and his power
I'm Albany-all these things and more
the defence will weave together on
Monday. The effort will be not TO pile
up more evidence, but 10 keep IS much
. ka4 kaa al hpnn
presented.
Il was largely on this evidence that
the homes Of the Roosevelt attorneys
10 get the case before the jury were
based.
Entries from the books Of the Jour
nal Company, controlled by William
Barnes, put in evidence this afternoon,
showed that the job-printing account
had been credited in ten years with
TeceIpts Of S37.828.64 from the J. B.
Lyon Company. The Journal Company
had no job-printing plant, and turned
over Jobs obtained from the state and
city and county OF Albany 20 the Lyon
establishment.
Nothing was put In evidence TO show
whether the money was entirely Tor
commissions on work transferred or
whether some OF II was commission
on work for which the Lyon Company
held the contract.
Payments from Lyon Company.
In some years there were several
pAyments-twenty-fou altogether. The
totsl amounts received each year were :
1908, s8,281 50; 1904, $4,000; 1905, ST.
862l7; 1906, s3,054; 1907. S8.722 70;
1908, S4,26l44; 1909, $5,430e4; l9l0
s6002.66; 1911, $4,937OS; 1872 S2,'oo
Charles NJ. Winchester, vice-presi-
tailed
again 70 produce some of the records
MI, Bowers wished. He had some
checks. but no check stubs lie had
one ledger, but not the books Of origl-
nal entry.
"Did you intend 70 say" witness was
asked on cross-examination, that you
gave q discount TO the Journal Com
many on all business from whatever
source?"
repyied, "that certain state WORK mao
never been let under contract, certain
classes Of Il being exempted IN the
nrinting law. This can be let out by
officials at their pleasure. II the years
we gave commissions 70 the journal
Company we performed such work that
thew had turned over 20 us ana gave
them commissions for it
"Did you ever pay the Journal Com
peny commissions Oh NO''N4eN~
made with the state, city or county
"No, sir"
witness told Of q complaint from
Mr.. Barnes about billing direct instead
of through 1.-THE Journal" and because
the Lyon Company put It's own imprint
on the work. After that "The journal
imprint was used.
Putting Henry J. Home, q printing
expert, on the stand, Stewart +. Han
sock. for the defence, started TO show
that city and state printing had been
done In extravagant style and charges
had been made for more composition
than had been done.
Assume that 20 be true" said the
court, "you must have evidence that
Mr.. Barnes was responsible for such
printing, but ! will receive this evil
dence and pass on its competency
later" To this Mr.. WINS warmly pro-
tested.
Charges Padding OF Matter.
Mr.. Hancock produced several books
with the declaration that he would
show that 10000 ems of matter hac
been put on page where 10000 hac
been charged for. In other cases
where the matter was paid for by the
mage IL was loaded out so as 10 reduce
the number Of lines.
On the argument on admissibility Of
Tho printing evidence Mr.. Bowers sale
he would probably be able 70 produce
nroof that the j. b. Lyon Company tooE