Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-01-06
EMERSON co. I.AID
CONTINUED from PAGE One)

alleges that the district attorney
conspired with Coakley by threat
ening the company with prosecution
and that coaxed the company into
paying the fees to Coakley for
"averting the prosecution"
Only three witnesses in the case
had been heard when court ad-
journed for the day. They were
Francis M. Carroll a Boston attor-
ncy. and two police officers who
were engaged in the Investigations
of the company's operations in 1916.
Carroll, testified that he was re-
tanned by Robert p. Matches in the
organization of a Massachusetts cor
poration to handle Emerson Motors
stock. He recommended the en-
ployment of Coakley to Amos T.
Stephens, New York counsel for the
| Emerson Company, when that attor-
ney came to Boston after hearing
reports that the district attorney
was investigating his fcompany's
! business.
| , With Matches and Stephens the
witness visited Coakley, who con-
firmed reports of the investigation
| by a personal interview with Pelle-
tier and afterwards arranged a con-
| ference for Stephens with the dis
trict attorney. At that conference
| Pelletier inquired as to representa-
| tions made in newspaper advertis-
| ing concerning the money-making
! possibilities of Emerson stock and
| indicated that he contemplated
prosecution on charges of false
statements in the advertising.
After leaving the district attor-
ney's office. Carroll testified he ad-
vised his clients that the charges
seemed trivial and that but for the
obstructive results" of publicity
which might be incident to the
prosecution he would recommend
that they take no steps to avoid it.
Both Stephens and Matches
thought the publicity would be dis
astrous and were inclined to favor
acceptance of Coakley's offer to take
the case on a $500 retainer fee, with
an additional fee of $4,000 to be
| paid If he were able to stop the
prosecution.
This course was taken and on Oc-
tober 5, the witness said, stephens
paid the $500 fee to Coakley. Sub
sequently the witness said Pelletier
told him in a telephone conVersa-
ton that he had considered the mat
ter carefully and that in view OF
| promises made by 'Coakley for the
Emerson Company. he had decided
to drop the case.
The conditions imposed. the wit
ness said on cross-eXamination, were
agreement by the company to dis
continue advertising. to begin at
once the manufacture of cars and
of stock in cases where the company
had so agreed at the time. of the
sales. should demand be made.
Two days after this conversation
with Pelletier, the witness said he
met Coakley and gave him a check
for $4,000. retaining $4,000 as his
own fee in the case. The witness
said also Stephens had informed
Pelletier during their conference,
that the stockholders would be the
sufferers if the company were prose
cuted.
George J. Farrell and Silas F.
| Waite. police inspectors in 1916. tes-
tilted to steps they took in investi-
eating the case for the district e--
torney's Office. Waite visited the
Emerson Companys factory in Long
Island City. New York, finding that
instead of occupying a four-story
building as was reported in the COM
pany's advertising. it actually occu-
pied single room 100 feet square.