Evening journal., 1922-11-28

municipalities.
After putting in his estimate foi
$4,000. Hook reduced II to $4,000
regarding which Howard Frantz told
him that he was a sucker for com.
ing down $4,000 as the city would
pay 100000 as well as $4,000,
( Hook testified. Hook said that he
made the estimate $4,000 and did
not add the Influence getting COM
missions" to that amount because
he had learned that what was abso-
lutely wanted by the city was a good
plant. and that the contract would be
awarded to the lowest bidder.
Hook said that when he received
a check from the city for S37,500
half-payment for the incinerator,
Howard asked him to pay him at
least half the commissions" and
asked that it he paid in so and 100
dollar bills. Hook said he could not
pay.
A letter. identified rs being in the
handwriting of Howard Frantz and
signed IF" was read 10 the Jury In
the letter. which was dated Hay %.
the writer stated that he was being
pressed and must have onc-ha'f this
week"
In conversation later with DR.,
Frantz at the latter's home, Hook
testified. the doctor demanded that
he carry out the agreement. and
that when he told the physician that
he and Howard had agreed to can.
eel the agreement. DR.. Frantz de-
clared that Howard had no right
to do that without his sanction; that
his CDR. Frantz) hat was in the
ring and he was going to get the
money" The witness said that Dr.
Frantz and Howard expressed a
willingness to take $4,000 instead of
$500 and that Dr. Frantz suggest
ed that Hook give the $4,000 and that
he could put in bills for payment
for extra work that would recon-
pense him for the $4,000 DR..
Frantz Hook said, assured him that
he would see that such bills were
paid and advised him TO see his at
torney, Mr.. Harmon, who would de-
wise in which he (Hook) would get |
his money back.
Hook said that he saw Mr.. Har-
man and that. the attorney advised .
him to go TO New York, get the /
5000 and pay II 10 the Frantz.
Or. Frantz, at a later conversa-
ion, the witness said, declared
we want our money and we don't
want any more blufing," threaten
ng that if the commissions were not
,aid he would see that not a cent
more would be paid on the garbage
turning plant. Some of the big
'est politicians of Wilmington had
o be paid. Hook said DIR. Frantz
old him.
A letter alleged TO havs been writ
en- by Howard Frantz 10 Hook,
ated February is, was read to the
ury It stated that the Democrats
re split on the incinerator ques-
ion; that one of the Democrats was
Iolding out for de Carrie plant. The
atter asked Hook 10 have patience
or another week and ended Take
t from me your plant will be in this
ity."
Direct examination OF Hook was
completed by Mr.. Finger at 11.2o
iclock. Mr.. Harman Immediately
tarted his cross-examinstion OF the
defendant witness.
Hook denied that he wrote the
greement and sent It to Howard
'rantz from New York. He said
hat 10 the best of his knowledge the
Igning took place in an automobile
n a side street. Mr. Harnan pro- 4
need the agreement and Hook iden- (
6ad II and his signature the
il was brought out, was
ated New York City:
The agreement as offered follows'
New York City,
Dec. End. 81. {
To the Bearer:
For cooperation, assistance {
and influence, and other valu-
able concessions, pertaining to
the garbage disposal contract
about to be let in your city
agree 10 pay the sums in ac- {
cordance to the herein stipu-
lated contracts. IL the success 7
full contractor. e
Fifty ton plant estimated not 4
over $4,000. a guarantee ct {
$1,000
seventy-hve ton plant esti- n
mated not over $4,000, a guar n
antee of $500. F
one hundred ton contract not h
over s95,000, a guarantee OF 4
$4,000. +
Payments to be made in ac- "
cordance 10 the percentage paid
to me. "
(Signed) +
II. 3. HOOK. d
Mr.. Harmsn produced another n
per and asked Hook IL he did not n
ctate Il and send 4, to Howard X
ANTI. Hook admitted that he o.
d. He denied. though. that he N
nj the agreement with that paper B
Frantz. Mr. Finger agreed that a
e agreement and the other paper
letter, be admitted as evidence. di
Hook said that 10 the best OF his fc
owledge he signed the agreement
December 3. but the agreement ca
admitted as evidence contained r
e date Dec. 2. The letter was Ia
ted December 3 and stated. II am te
30 enclosing a formal agreement Sc
tween ourselves on your project" ci
,ok denied though, that that re- III
ferred to the agreement in ques- hi
N. W
The letter also said that pursuant pl
phone call the writer was send III
2 a note to be written on Board ia
Health paper 10 lend IL more OF
estige in getting money. 81
At the time Of tha, letter. Howard
anti was TO represent Hook in NJ
'ing 20 get contracts for inciner- nj
ors in other cities. Hook said. He OF
i'd too, that he had told Howard IN
=. 4 .o,,tS =. - 49, III ~ ps