New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-07

been a lively argument az TO whether
the minute book signed by the score
tary Of the corporation was competent
evidence 20 prove that MIR. Barnes was
actually at the meetings a. stated.
After the production Of authorities
Justice Andrews decided that it was.
Journal Company Records Read.
Taking the precious little minute
book before the jury, William II. Van
Bcnschoten then proceeded to read the
record in part from January p, 1897,
TO April 6. 1912. Il showed this at
most Of the meetings the only trustees
present were Mr.. Barnes, president;
j. NJ. Davis, and J. II. Lindsay, secre-
tary. The principal business trans.
acted, aside from the declaration OF
the quarterly dividends, seemed to be
the authorization of Mr.. Barnes to as
sign 70 the Albany County Bank claims
of the Journal Company agaInts the
county, city and state for printing.
At other times. Mr.. Barnes and Mr..
Davis were authorized 20 receive money
due the company and to sign warrants.
On September -, 1907, they were en-
powered to sign note and borrow
$4,000 The evidence of the book
SlONel InaI lDe JOuIudl NOlllph49b
which, according to testimony already
in, never owned Job printing plant,
had received money for various kinds
Of printing in addition to receipts from
advertisements of tax lists in the news
paper and things Of that nature.
The book showed the passage Of
quarterly dividends at the rate Of 10
rer cent a year on the common and 3
per cent a year on the preferred stock
of the company, with now and then
melon in the way of an extra 10 or 20
per cent.
The dividends in detail were brought
before the jury by the. aid OF william
J. Nussbaum, a certified accountant,
who went over the stock check book IN
the witness chair while Mr.. Bowers
dug into the dividend account in a
ledger. The record ran from April 10,
1908, to April 30, 1913, period OF five
years. During that time there were
twenty regular quarterly dividends de-
clared, Mr. Barnes receiving S2,U2O
each time. or a total Of $4,000. But
much more interesting were the melons
that were cut now and then. The year
1909 seemed to have been the banner
year for the Journal Company. Only
one of the three dividend periods
passed without the declaration of extra
profits. In April, 1909, the share of Mr..
barnes in this "extra" was .S8,OSO. In
July be got $4,000 above the regular
5000, while in December he got $780,
40 out of an extra dividend of some
$4,000.
Barnes's Extra Profits"
The following dividend day, January
II, 1910, the Barnes part Of melon
was Sl2,l20. A year later he got So
O6O, in addition to the regular dividend.
This made total receipts for Mr.. Barnes
in dividends from the company for fye
years of SS6,S4O. The amount dis
persed to other stockholders in that
time was S38,765. or course, Mr.
Barnes has held a great majority Of
the stock all along.
All the dividend checks were count
ersigned by Mr.. Barnes as president.
Counsel for the defence declared they
introduced the record OF the meetings
and the dividend declarations to show
how Mr.. Barnes had not only knowl-
edge but actual direction of the tinan-
cial affairs of the company.
The money from which the dividends
was paid was traced through the &C
countant from a dividend account TO a
profit and loss account, which got
considerable share of its bulk from the
job printing account.
"Then you say" asked Justice An
drews of Mr.. Bowers, that Mr. Barnes
is chargeable with knowledge of what
was in the job printing accounts be-
cause he countersigned these checks
and because he had authority over the
employees and financial affairs of the
company" lie added that he wished
counsel would produce authorities to
show that the books were competent to
prove just that sort of thing. Unless
that is done to his satisfaction the evil
dence Of the accounts may be stricken
out.
Bayne Committee Testimony.
Mr.. Bowers had all sorts Of trouble
trying to get into evidence the record
of the brief testimony Of Mr.. Barnes
before the Bayne committee in 1911. II
finally became necessary TO place Ar
thur G.. Warner on the stand to testify
that his memory of the testimony was
in accord with the minutes. He was
assistant counsel to the Baync com
mittce and is now connected with the
Roosevelt legal battery.
II seems that before the Bayne COM
mittee Mr.. Barnes was asked if he had
heard a representative of the Argus
Company testify as to the Is per cent
that went to the Journal Company for
printing contracts. He said he had
heard the testimony, but would have
nothing TO say about it. The attempt
Of Mr.. Bowers was to show that at that
time Mr.. Barnes was aware of the pay
ments by the "Argus" to the Journal"
and finally the court ruled it allowed.
Another she'll Of the defence missed
fire when they tried to prove through
ex-senator George b. Burd, of Buffalo,
that influences Of a certain kind had
prevented the passage of bills to cut
down the amount Of state printing re-
CURED. The witness was permitted to
show that these bills had not been re-
ported out Of the Printing Committee,
Of which he was chairman.
Printing Expert Put on Stand.
After Mr.. Hancock, for the defence.
had read to the jury the names OF the
Controllers, Attorney Generals and the
Secretarys of State from 1899 up to
1915, with the statement that he In
tended to try to show that these Of
fcials, constituting the various state
printing boards, had been influenced by
Mr.. Barnes in the letting of printing
contracts, Henry j. Home, who has
charge Of the bureau Of printing of
Columbia University, was put on the
stand.
Evidently prepared long in advance
for this very move, Mr.. Wins jumped
up TO cross-examne with two type
written sheets Of technical questions.
He got the witness to acknowledge that