Norwich bulletin., 1922-01-06
MOTORS FIGURES
IN THE PELLETIER TRIAL

Boston, Jan. Testimony that Dis
trict Attorney Joseph c. Pelletier drop
ped threatened criminal prosecution
against the Emerson Motors Company of
New York after counsel for that COM
any had paid s2o.5oo fees to Daniel II.
Coakley, a Boston lawyer, in an effo-t TO
avert prosecution, was offered in su-
preune court today at the trial of Pelle-
tier on charges Of misconduct This IS
the twelfth instance presented to the
court Of the sixty cited in the intor7na-
ton filed against the district attorney
by Attorney General ]. Weston Allen IN
the proceedings looking to Pelletiers re-
moval.
The Emerson case was investigated by
the Boston Bar Association which after
wards presented the matter to the at
torney general. The specification con-
tains five counts and alleges that the dis
trict attorney conspired with Coakley by
threatening the company with prosecl-
lion and thus coerced the company into
paying the fees<o Coakley for ''avertiag
the prosecution
Only three witnesses in the case mad
been heard when court adjourned for
the day. They were Francis NJ. Carroll,
a Boston attorney, and two police off,
GERS who were engaged in the investi-
cations Of the conpanys operations n
1915
Carroll testified that he was retained
by Robert p. Matches in the orgahiza-
ton Of Massachusetts, corporation 10
handle Emerson Motors stock. He rec
commended the employment of CoaHley 20
Amos T. STEPHENS, New York counsel
for the Emerson Company who had come
TO Boston after hearing reports that the
district attorney was Investigating the
COmnany'S business
Coakley arranged a conference with
the district attorney who inquired Of
Stepehens as to representations in news
lpaper advertising concerning Emerson
stock and indicated that he contemplated
prosecution on charges of false state
ments in the advertising
| Because Stephens and Matches thought
| the publicity inc dent to prosecution
would be disastrous to the company,
Carroll said they accepted Coakley's Of
Ger to take the case on a $500 retaining
Zee, with an additional fee of $4,000 to
u" Maid if he were able to stop the prose-
cution.
After the retainer had been paid the
witness said Pelletier told him in teIe-
phone conversation that he had consid-
cred the matter carefully and in view OF
promises made by Coakley for the Emer.
son Company he had decided to drop the
case.
The conditions imposed, the witness
said on cross-exasnination. We're agres-
ment by the company to discontinue al.
vertising to begin at once the manu-
| facture of cars and to refund money
paid by. purchasers of stock in case,
where the company had so agreed at tht
time of the sales, should demand be
made
Two days after this conversation witl
'PeAetier. the witness said he gave Coax
ley a check for $4,000 retaining $500
as his own fee. He said Stephens hat
Informed Pelletier during their confer
ence that the stockholders would be sllf
ferers If the company were prosecuted.
George ]. Farrell and Silas F. Waite
police inspectors in 1916. testified t
steps they took in investigating the cas-
Tor the district attorneys office Wait
visited the Emerson Company's factor
In Long Island City, N Y. and foun
that instead of occupying a four-stor
ouilding as was represented in the com
pany's advertising, it actually occupie
q single room 100 feet square.