The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-05-02

He then explained in detail as fol-
 lows: Burr & Knapp have no busi-
 ness of their own of which have any freco11ectfon which is unconnected with
 something which interested other peo-
 pie, from whom I got my pay since lthe trial of Burr & Knapp against liar
 ty which was about 1902 or 1903. I never received 8 retainer, never re- ceived a dollar that I know of, from Burr & Knapp for services which l rendered them since that suit. They had many actions brought in their own name like foreclosures but they were always somebody eIse's business and I got my pay from somebody else. "1 never wrote an opinion for them ad- ded the witness to specific question, and he then declared that paper shown him by Attorney Bowers had been written upon the question of new | tax laws for the Waterveliet Hydrau- l lie company of which Chamberlain was president.
 How the Waterve1iet Hydraulic Co.,, 1 was controlled in Bridgeport was ex- plained in detail by the with ness. Upon 1 the issue of fourth mortgage bonds 1 of which Burr & Knapp sold about $10,00O, foreclosure proceedings were brought on the first, second and third
 mortgages. It was either rehabi1itate l the company or lose what investment had been made. Thousands of dol lars were sunk by Burr & Knapp in l the effort MT. Warren of New Haven, Knapp, Burr, Hull and Chamberlain of this city were included in the list of directors.
 As preliminary to a bit of start ling testimony it was shown that all borrowings were supposed to be au- thorized by directors of the Water veliet company, that when notes were issued they were presumably made out 4 by Burr & Knapp and endorsed by Chamberlain as president of the Wa tervliet company. About $2O,oo0 of these notes were in question. One to the amount of $1o,000 was declared to have been deposited with the First Bridgeport National Bank and to have been properly endorsed ] And the $5,OOO note that went to the City National bank ?''5 asked the in vestigator.
 '.I never knew much about that note,' answered Chamberlain. Did you endorse ft?''
 'fI might have was the reply. And Burr & Knapp endorsed it and put it up as col1ateral?' again queried Bowers. l.
 T do no tknow anything about that from the witness who further contfn- ued:
 3AThat note was executed to help Burr & Knapp out for overdrafts for the company. They foated it for a year and 8 half as collateral. I have learned that fact only since the faf1- ure.''
 It further developed that the first Chamberlain knew of the notes pres ence in banking circles twas when C. S. Garfield representing a client demand ed its payment. Chamberlain further added that Burr & Knapp owned $92,- 900 worth of stock in the WaterveIiet company and that every particle of credit ever given that company was Gone solely for the benefit of Burr & Knapp And for nobody else.
 But primarily for the benefit of the Watervelfet Company?'' asked the investigator in surprise
 No, persisted Chamberlain who further made it plain that every deal in Waterveliet endorsements was to get Burr & Knapp on it's feet.
 T signed the papers, said Cham berlain so that they could get the money.'
 "I understand,' interjected the sur prised inquireH "but the purpose was that the Waterve1iet Company could l pay that money?''
 .tfFhe purpose was'' again flashed Chan1nerlain, Ito let Knapp make good on his $92,0O0 worth of stock The ] primary purpose was to help Knapp 1 and nothing else.''
 Well, MT. Chamberlain said the ! surprised investigator, you certainly { would not have issued paper for other I |
 The primary purpose of issue was | one thing and the reason for endorse ment was another,'' countered Cham berlain.
 Though Chamberlain admitted as { trustee that he had never fully ex- am1ned the books of the former com pany to ascertain if there were un- disclosed assets he admitted that some have been received by him. speci-I f1cally $4oO which was turned in May by an unmentioned creditor. There E is much collateral security that the trustee believed should be listed as as- sets of Burr 6 Knapp.
 The matter of certain notes that have been paid under threat of prose- cution was here entered into, speci-l explained that at the time of failure he had signed many notes. Witness did not know whether the WatervelietI balance had been taken over.
 know nothing about that $5,OO0 note for two years. My signature wasl not on it for the first year or so MT l Hough took, that note without my.I signature on Nt1le strength of water l. vile collateral
 teWhen, did you put yo11r sisnat,,ra.E on it?
 q cannot tell you that,' answered. That note was dis counted by Burr & Knapp with col lateral attached and carried by him without any knowledge on my part for two or three years.''
 tdr- Hough told me he never loan ed on anything except your sigma ture,' asserted MT. Bowers.
 That is true about the $10,O0o note," replied Chamberlain. '"The $5,- Oo0 note was in a different category.''l
 Chamberlain. asked if the sigma ture were a forgery, refused to say so before the court.
 The sale of the Fairview Lawn property late in August. 1914, car ries with it a bit of harsh banking history according to MT. Chamberlain who relates the deal as follows:
 T was going to Canada. My tic 1t kets were bought and trunks at the i