The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-05-02
Rowley w. Phillips Again Cross-Examined
tContinued From Page D

minutes of a meeting held on Octo- Der 3, 1884, at which Philips was marked present although he actu- ally did not attend this session.
 Wasn't Satisfied
 e. From 1881 to 1888 you weren't satisfied with the way the parent firm was cutting on on the business of the Canadian branch, were you? A. There were certain things in this period not entirely satisfactory. A letter was introduced by Attor- ney Kaufman then, from Phillips to c. s. Sargent, dated March 3i, l037, in which tho writer said that of the record" Coster had told him that McKesson's was being "gypped" by the parent company.
 e. Did you tell the Stockholder, this?
 A. I told some Of them.
 e. Did you tell the rank and Ale of themp
 A. I didn't send out any circular letters, no.
 e. You realized that the Cana dian business was diametrically dif- ferent than when the branch was formed and made such statements In letters, didn't youp
 A. I might have.
 e. Is this correct?
 4 Bit Exaggerated
 A. It's bit exaggerated because l wanted to drive home @ point.
 e. Was It your habit to exag. geratep
 A. No, nor to make wrong state ments.
 o. Isn't 1t so that your only req. son for bringing William 0. Cooling ham (the Canadian head of Sher. win Williams mentioned severa, times in testimony in as director was for the purpose of window dressing?
 A. No, I considered him a valu. able asset.
 c. Who else did you propose as 6 Canadian director?
 A. l don't remember.
 Continuing his questioning alonl this line Kaufmann also asked Phil lips If he hadn't proposed Coding ham because he thought him a goot prospect for the R. F. Griggs Com pany. He was asked if he didn' have several conversations with hin and discuss the Scovill company a one of these.
 Didn't Think So
 Kaufmann also asked the witnes If he didn't tell his salesmen tha conditions in the Canadian com pany were diametrically differen than the original plans called for MT. Phillips didn't think he had.
 Pushed further along this line h said he might have told Alfred Hart Horace Merwin, Edward Bradle, and many other associates. An at tempt by the prosecution to inser the phrase insiders" to describ those told failed when the defens objection, was upheld.
 The witness also declared tha there was no probe Of McKesson af fairs called for by the directors iron 1882 to 1888.
 Kaufmann also asked Phillips {, tell him when the first plans to floa stock in McKesson, Ltd, wer preached and the witness said No vember, 1884. Asked who proposed it he replied he thought it was Coster Kaufmann asked him if 1t wasn' the bankers, but the witness didn' think so nor did he think the bank were pushing Coster in 1887 due t, his financial standing.
 Returns to Word "Gypped"
 Towards noon again Kaufman returned to the expression "gypped' which had been used in testimony Kaufmann asked Phillips if h, thought McKesson, Ltd. was beinI "gypped" and the witness said ther, were some who thought so. A dis cussion of the exact meaning of th' word, "gypped" ensued 1.lA Judg, Moscowitz entering it. too.
 Phillips was asked if from l93 to 1888 he didn't figure things weren' right or as they should be. He wa asked if he inspected invoices to SC, if business was going along al right. Phillips responded that h, took the word Of the president.
 Didn't the president tell you thu Connecticut branch was taking Can adian business" asked Kapfmann Yes" replied Phillips. What nor, proof did you need then of some thing wrong." said Kaufman. q