New-York tribune., 1921-11-04

full attention. The matter il to come
up again IN the Supreme Court within
few days, when sensational disclos-
ures respecting the activities of
o'Rellly and Mccarthy in the pier leas-
ing business are promised
Anderson says in his .affidavits that
ne obtained business for the Sun firm
from the Holland America Line, Lam
port & Holt Line, United States Shin
ping Board, Pan-American Dock & Ter
minal corporation, the Barber Line.
norton Lilly Co., R. H. Thompson &
Co, Seaman Paper Company and other
shipping houses.
Neither O'Reilly nor Mccarthy was
conversant with shipping matters. /"
reaos Anderson's affidavit before the
supreme Court. almost all the
Quoted by Mr.. Maliey and mvself 7
obtained nearly all the business of the
hrm during the period I was employed d
by it. =
The shipping business was novel
adventure for O'Reilly and Mccarthy.
and yet in six months, on a capital
OF less than $500, they and Mallev re-
celved as profits from $4,000 to s75,-
ooo- There were many unusual and
interesting features about this busi-
ness. Peculiar conditions and extraor-
/ SRPS- bQ4llLlES DTOQElL rlcn
returns to O'Reilly and Mccarthy for
small investments of time and capital.
Saw No Tangible Assets
The Sun Shipping Company con-
Quoted a business of whicn its name
gave little indication. 1t owned and
controlled no ships; it maintained no
system of navigation. 1t was largely
scheme TO secure piers and dockage
In d. Z
In connection with the fling of the
alleged false certificate Of business,
Anderson says, according to the rec
ord, "Messrs. O'Reilly and Mccarthy
kney that they and Mr.. Malley had
deceived the world concerning the pro-
prietorship of the Sun Navigation
Company"
According to the records, Anderson
was told by O'Reilly on September i,
1918, that the latter and Mccarthy
were obliged to conceal from the pub
lie their connection with the Sun Navi-
cation Company because they were en-
ployees of the county registers office"
The Sun Shipping Company, Inc.
which succeeded the Sun Navigation
Company, it appears further from the
record, was incorporated august 23,
| 1919, but the firm continued to do busi-
ness under the old name until about
the middle of December. Anderson
charged that he had been told by NAL
ley that the firm was about to transfer
its assets to the corporation about jan
uary l, 1920, and that he, Anderson,
had better take action to protect his
interests.
The firm, it was set forth in the
records, kept no records Of its bust
ness, and neither O'Reilly nor Nc
Carthy could say in court how much
business it had done.
Former Judge James A. Allen was
counsel for the Sun firm. He ad
mitted that mo substantial reason is
given for the desire OF O'Reilly and
MEGA rthy TO conceal their connection
with the business" He admitted also
that the fling of the alleged false
certificate of business was an "indis-
cretion" and was "unjustifable.
Denied Commission Claim
Mccarthy and O'Reilly, however, de-
MED that they owed Anderson any COM
mission, saying no such arrangement
had been entered into with him. They
declined to give any detailed story on
the nature OF the conduct Of the busi-
ness.
Anderson gives his homs address IS
4s Garden Place. Brooklyn. Malley
said he lived at 1854 West Seventh
Street. Brooklyn.
At the Office Of the Department Of
Docks it was said yesterday that the