New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-02-08
Opposing Counsel in Con
tract Suits Got
S63, 12S.
Z. NJ. CIRCUITS BILLS
ALSO UNEARTHED
Thompson Committee Delves
Into Morgan & Co.'S Handling
of Subway Cash.

Edward VI. CIRCUITS bills to the In
torborough Rapid Transit Company for
$4,000 for legal services rendered in
1911 and their compromise payment
through a third party, the INTERIOR
ouch's payment Of S6812s.62 to law
vers who fought the company in the
courts i'm the dual subway contract
suit and the company's financial trans
actions with j. p Morgan & Co. were
aired Yesterday before the Thompson
legislative committee.
Horace VI. Fisher. secretary OF the
Interborough. aided by vouchers, bills
and minutes Of marlborough meetings,
shed this ray Of illumination on tho
witness stand. Mr.. Fisher displayed no
startling knowledge of marlborough
affairs or its motives. But the vouch-
ers. bills and minutes supplied inter-
esting reading and gave promise Of
crop of revelations in connection with
the Interborough's dealings with j. P.
Morgan & CO.. the Admiral Realty
Company and Edward VI. Grout, for
mer controller.
Mr.. CIRCUITS name was brought out
when Mr.. Fisher handed over his little
bunch of vouchers and bills for illegal
services rendered
81 find here q payment made to Ed
ward VI. Grout," said cambridge Col
by. counsel for the committee. ut is
for $4,000. and was paid July Z, 1911,
AS retainer. There is no statement
here as 10 what the payment was for
DO YOU know
ct was for professional services 10
connection with subway Matters re-
piled Mr.. Fisher. Apart from that
cannot enlighten you"
Grout Bill Compromised.
Mr. Colby then discovered bill FOR
$4,000 presented by Mr.. Grout for pro-
fessional services, but the voucher at
tached showed that it had been cut
down TO $500. which had been paid.
Attached to the bill and voucher was
letter from Richard r. Rogers stating
that he had compromised with circuit
through q third party for settlement
of the $4,000 bill for $500.
That was about all Mr.. Colby was
able 10 extract from the witness about
the Circuit bills.
Mr. Fisher was a patient witness and
smiled good naturedly when he had 70
plead ignorance in answer TO some APP
parenty simply questions regarding
. Tvsf hot h
the lawyers who were fighting 1t as
counsel for the Admiral Realty Com
pany.
Mr.. Colby confronted the witness
with the intimation that there might
have been a collusive suit brought By
the Admiral Realty Company against
the city and the Interborough Com
pany 20 test the validity of the dual
subway contract. II was shown by the
Interborough's own bills and vouchers
that IT had paid the sum Of S63,l2s.02
20 the lawyers who were fighting the
Interhoroueh in behalf Of the com
'plsinant realty company.
'You have produced here said Mr..
Colby. "some bills and vouchers from
the law firm of Hays, Hershheld &
Wolf for tho sum Of S37,S09.g0 pre-
scented on October 2. 1912. They are
described a. being for professional ser
vices in determining the validity OF the
proposed extension Of subway ana
terms Of operation thereof
Shonts Submitted Bills
81 find also bill and voucher pre-
scented By the law firm Of Guggen-
hejner. Cntermyer d Marshall on
October 3, 1912, for the sum of $50.
SlSI2 for similar service. The min
utes Of luterborough meetings show
that Nj Shouts submitted these bills
20 the board and payment was author
lied. Was there any discussion at the
meeting regarding these services and
tho propriety of the charges ~
"Not beyond the usual questions"
replied Mr. Fisher.
Tho Iutcrborough's secretary could
not describe the Admiral Realty Com
pauy and did not know whether IL was
connected with the marlborough. but
had an idea that the realty company
had hired its own counsel. to whom the
marlborough had later paid the 500
1852 for professional services rem
dered.
Asked why the lntcrhorough had paid
this sum TO the opposing counsel, Mr.
Fisher replied:
at was done. | suppose. because the
marlborough was interested in know
ing whether the contracts were valid
30 was 90 their interest 20 know. as
they were about 80 issue bonds on tho
contracts
Mr. Fisher seemed 20 be more at
home when Mr.. Colby questioned him
about the marlborough cash balances
hold by J. =. Morgan & Coz especially
at the afternoon session, when he had
returned from his Office with memo
randum Of the balances up 20 the close
e. business last Saturday. There wers
five accounts. the balances amounting
60 Sal.17Sh1S19
Bond Proceeds Credited 10 Account.
Am / 60 understand that when the
Iutcrborough bonds are delivered TO J
10 Morgan d Co. that firm does not
.urn over 90 the marlborough company
trc proceeds of the bonds. but places
chem 60 the lutorborough's account Of"
asked Mr. Colby.
ayes. the cash is placed 20 our credit
sud we draw against it, replied Mr..
Fisher
Nr Fisher explained that this was I'm
rcCordaucc with au agreement with the
banking firm. bat hc did not know of
any contract having been made 90 that
effect. BE thought Noreans word was
O., good a~ his bond. Later he amend
cd his testimony when lawyer for The
Iutcrboroucl gave him copy OF such
contract
Here are the lnterborough cash bal.
lnces with .. Z. Morgan 4 Co.:
i. =. Morgan q Co. General account,
S5.4Sqt2. subway contribution. S44.-
I'D ..Nt