New-York tribune., 1918-05-29

Hunt said the greatest number of
workmen ever employed totalled twelve
or fifteen. The factory equipment he
itemized as consisting of zone lathe.
two drill presses, one emery wheel and
one hack saw"
In November, 1915, the "plant" was
removed to Kingston, N. Y.
What was the condition of the
factory here when you moved in 2" in
quired the prosecutor.
Empty" replied the witness.
Mr.. Hunt added that he had never
seen designs for a complete Emerson
car during the whole of the concerns
stay at Long Island City. Both Ford
and Metz parts were consistently used
he declared The total output of the
Kingston factory he estimated at 800
cars.
The government fortified the point
of these revelations by introducing nu.
merous circulars and advertisements
issued by the defendants, who were
selling the Emerson stock during this
period. From the South and the West.
too, several witnesses were produced
who swore to having been persuaded
through these to invest in Emerson
Motors stock
The government furthermore showed
Tor the first time yesterday that C. r.
Berry g. Co., one of the defendant cor
porations in this action, had issued a
tour.-page newspaper, called Motor
Stocks" which had been largely used
in boosting the Emerson securities.
John W. Hagenmiller, who described
himself as newspaper man, testified
to having run this publication under
the direction of the defendant, N. F.
Wilson.
Papers Refused Advertising
Another witness who identified Mr..
Wilson with the direction of the ;:c-
vertising campaign was John S. Peck
ham, manager of the Campbell Adver-
tising Agency, of this city, who told
Of having placed advertisements of the
Emerson car and its stock throughout
the country
Also Mr.. Peckham testified that in
many instances reputable newspapers
had refused this advertising.
In the same connection an article
laudatory OF the Emerson prospects
which appeared. ander Detroit date
line in "The New York Commercial"
was traced to Mr.. Wilson's Offices in
the Marbrdge Building.
The government thrusts at the me-
chanical competence Of Mr.. Hupp were
developed through the testimony of
Frank c: Hill, service manager of the
Oldsmobile Motor Works; J. Walter
Drake, OF the lrupmobile Company;
Emil A. Nelson, of Detroit, designer
of many successful automobiles, and
Frank L. Klingensmith, vice-president
of the Ford Motor Works.
Mr.. Klingensmith said that Hupp
had been engaged by the Ford Com
pany on June II, 1906, to take charge
of the plans and repair department.,
that he had later been made purchas-
ing agent for the supply department,
finally severing his connection with
the concern in January, 1908.
The Ford official declared that Hupp
had had nothing to do with the devel-
Hupp could not, in his opinion. be
classed as a qualified automobile en-
gineer.
Mr.. Hill said that Hupp's connec-
tion with the Oldsmobile company, too.
had been in the service department,
and that he was in no way responsible
for the production of that mAchine.
Finally Mr.. Drake testified that, in
stead of withdrawing from the Hup-
mobile concern because he would not
indorse. a proposed increase in the
IN fact, been forced by his associates
to withdraw because of his connections
with other businesses.
Asked by the court why the Hupmo
bile had been given Mr. Hupp's name
If, as the witness had declared, he did
not design it, Mr.. Drake replied:
"The name was used because of Mr..
Hupp's insistence on it in order to es-
tablish his name in the automobile
business"
Mr. Nelson, who, according to Mr.
Drake, designed the Hupmobile, swore
that Mr., Hupp had not assisted him in
that task.