Trenton Evening Times from Trenton, New Jersey on January 2, 1907 · Page 14
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

Trenton Evening Times from Trenton, New Jersey · Page 14

Publication:
Location:
Trenton, New Jersey
Issue Date:
Wednesday, January 2, 1907
Page:
Page 14
Start Free Trial
Cancel

TKKNTON K V H l N l N Q TIMES, YVKUNKHDAir, JANUAKY 2, ,11'SHFFIINI. IAIPIHIIWO JlllXil-: KI'1LSTAI.'S niAKGK TO Till' JURY IN WAND CASK ccial nu.ting of Common Council, (Continued fmm Pajre 1). of the crimes act \ v h i c h 1 have already j h"*ed for tonight, has been changed I quoted, ar.J upon \vhl. h till" I n . ' L a t m e n t i"»y night. It will -*e tb« pi-c« I Is laid, ex|r«'8«l der'tiros t h a t a person ar muting. wl»U* should have 1 wno I again, gentlemen, I ask you to note that ' i h l " flre took place at a time when, ac- I cordinit to the testimony of the defend' ant's, the business season was at its .1iilU"*t. f.n.l ihe slock of goods on hand lowest, and when, as Is abundantly l hill lut night. iTpor^nt b«·ln-^s peading is | V-**id«ratlon of the ordinances giving freight franchises to the Trenton jfiAt Rall*»y Company and the Camden Trenton Railway Company. These 1 not come up Friday night, however. , will be held pending a public hearing ] ? erve , the question. The date for the hear- j may 1 t not y#t be tn fixed. i '"'" ''' uncllman Dlxon, chairman of the Or- |i y and m a l i c i o u s l y sets fire , established, the Insurance was at It' to or aids In the selling Ilrf to of any ' highest Whn! character of revenge IB w h i c h at tha; time shall ii, tftMUlamwn. ttmt Impels a man to sst , . rin tn property which Is subject to his be insured, w i t h the i n t e n t to prejudice ,t,, R lingi, »s yet undiscovered? For the Iniuntm'f underwriters-. slrill he mind you. If McKeehy Is the man refer- g u i l t y ,'f a h l s h su.-hV""ilt hi- t ' - n p r o p e r t y v h . t h e r reil 10 In the suggestion he. because of ich per- ; h i s I n t i m a t e knowledge of the charac- the huslness In which the defend- r :iny ntlu-r. ^'» t h a t c n w i l l oh- ' t at ;1', . rlrpr Ivre , ! · ' ] · mm-fl P I I N u , T e enKJiKecl, would k n o w t h a t C ' . n i p l . ' t e rv..n t l m u K h tli- per- . i i s i v ]. w ,IH the t i m e when the stuck on m i n i n g !l .ha.Vi:-ri,, .m-mriii], -hand \vi.uM b* the lowest. -However. matter of revenge tins or u i m l t y as a m.'tive to you basement and on each of the six floor* of such building several times In Sa this company had actually on hand at the time of placing such new Insurance. discharge of his duties: that every The defendant, David H. Brand, In article In t h a t building was Inventoried 1 support of his inalstance that at the Including the f u r n i t u r e In the base- I "me ° r placing this new ln»urance, there ment; t h a t there were no boxed goods i was stock un hand to an amount as or goods packed In c«es on the sixth I large or larger than the amount of Indoor at the time of the checking of '· surance thus placed thereon plus In- ·uch inventoi y; that \] there had been ; Durance then subsisting, testified , to they would have discovered them by ; purchases made by htm during the their system of checking and Inspect- i years 1904 and 1905 up to the time of Ing the good*, and If such had been ' l *"' ftTM ' n B0 testifying he did not found they v:ould have been added to I u f l p the falsified Invoice books for the the list of "overs"; that In the .nd It I years 1904. but testified from Invoices was agreed b e t w e e n htm ond Morris ' which he produced, covering the twelve The aggregate amount of purchases as taken from the Invoices covering such months, as testlfted to by the defendent. David H. Brand, after deducting there- from the Amount representing the valuo of th« roods that were sent to the Warren Street store and adding thereto the twenty per cent, of Increase for missing InvoloM, Is the sum of J56.997.1S. And when to tMi Is added the sum o! fl1*,Mn. the amount of merchandise that the statement of November 1. 1J304, shows was ori hand at that time, the total amount o( stock on hand on May !, into, if non·· of H had been soil d u r l n a the preceding six months, would be (170.497.16, or (3.157.85 lens than the aggregate amount of pui'- in made for the 3taio nd Oreenla that the total amount of \ m o n t h s of 1904, and the first six months j chases that had been made for the State asw«s a«B-»ys-S3MMs: sS.STMH??Ss lies from the book kept by Mrs. Adam son Into which the amounts rlnit the goods of amount of the damage sustained by have proceeded without a motive' 1 T h t ^ t t i motive m n y be so h i d d e n In the tiri'iixt s u r h of the crimlna! ns to defy proof thefo- fendant, David H. Brand, also testined m n y , of which he held such a rea . 8nn of such fire, and _ that amount that ,the .aggregate amount of pur l. "an'd ' '"c.raapil the"KOOd9 totally "destroyTM chases that went Into the State street of; yet, nevertheless, t h e net uf every t h e n w i t h ihe I n t e n t to defraud the In- ! "^ out °* ''tht. He further testified store as taken from such Invoices, is that Invoice value of. the goods con- property was deliberately over- have In the result of the Issu", are talned on such Invoices but which went i n j u r e d , and with tin 1 Intent to defraud the Insurance companies. Ex- InsuTance Is R relevant fact, its it tends to show or sti live. This leads us to an all matters to be considered a motive for the commission by the In this case-, and It, determination de- _ t l l 11 In Trenton, N. J.. on the 1st Inst., F.liiabeth N., widow of Ortello · Cittl. »nd daughter of Eleanor Steelman No.rls, of Tuckahoe, N. J. The relatives and friends of the · family are respectfully invited to at. tend the funeral from the residence of her son-in-law, Benjamin Drake, J16 Pearl strict, on Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock. Inteiuient at Rlvervlew cemetery. G R A H A M Suddenly, at his home. Taylorsvllle Backs county. Pa., on -the" 1st Jay r -Uth-month, 30. 190H, Augustus Orahflm. The relatives nnd friend* of the family are invited to attend the funeral i without notice, from his la*e TMn»nr.e. ; " lit Taylorotllle. Pa., on the fifth day 1st ·uonth, $, at 10: JO a. m. Carriages "'..JJ moet li»ln at Washington's Cross- Ting leaving Broad Street Station. Phir-~ inelpWa, at »\W a. in. I-l-Zt" MA80N In HoiHsvllle, on the 31st ult.. Edward Mason, In the 69th - year of his age. The relatives' and friends of the " family,, alpo South Trenton Lodge. No. 8«, 1. O. O. P., are invited to attend (he fnneral fiom his son's residence, Crtr«n street, MOrrlnvllle. on Thursday afternoon At J o'clock. Interment sJ. HofilisvlUe Cofliete.,. 1-1-Jt frVKEE In thii city, on the 1st Inst., : - / Hugh McKoo, Sr. ' 'ms relatives and friends of th,e -j fatally are respectfully Invited to at^" tsfld the fnneral from his late resi- e, No. 135 Academy street, on Frl- . _.., morning at 8 o'clock. Mass at ?-*t. Ms.y'i Cathedral at « o'clock. In- eiMent at St. John's cemetery. ·Flease omit flowers. ' 1-2-21 MOUNT In this city, on the 31st tilt. Anna B., wife of Edgar E. Mount, In the 4td year of her age. The relatives and, friends of the famllv, also Camp, No. 6, P. O. R. of -A;; wll.bur Chamber, No. 7, K. of F.. (jnr: employes of the Walter Automobile works, are invited to attend the funeral from her husband's residence, No. 16 Randolph street, on Friday after!\. at 1 o'clock. Inteniient at Greend cemetei/, at convenience of the Lily. 1-1-St It Is a duct that crim t t i T T ' w n cien or a.lenunte one. W h i l e oK.ilMd rule of human con- Is the response of the uct ta c r m e s te response o e j of t n p tf . stlmon | nv( , lv | n(r the placing evil mind in some temptation and that . f | n , uran( , e ,^ 0 amount of property men of pound mind nre rnrely. if ever ; ,, h , t h f | ,, , ^ t ^ J s P o r mi: P ,rn d pe i ;, 0 n, mot^e. It",'^ ZX ^'» "* "«=mdln B the time of the low. «nd it Is not Ihe lav, that the prosecution, to j u s t i f y a conviction In a given rase, must he so successful In fathoming »h» mysteries of the hti- m n n mind nnd in revealing the possibly hidden secrets" rnflueneinp^tvns to \eiop and disclose to the lury a motive sufficient and adequate for the corn- mission of the offense. The other denoirrnay neT'such as to . ( U H l i f y ;, vlctlon without any motive The evidence shows that the $133,- noo of insurance that was upon the property at the time of the flre was that that IWit otiv _c.f _the was renewal Insurance, and thiit J38.000 of such insurance was distinctively new insurance. The evidence shows t h i t of thlijxw InBUrance. tlo.ftOO^vns '. \ placed on February 6. 1905. $1,COO on v i c i i o n wunum :uiy r n u i . v f ut-n.K i mnr » i Knn ** ~v, »1 shown. T, m a y b e so weak thM, with- ^\ 3 ^«' K 29, m 7 - M "$20,000 ofT April 6, 1905. The proofs of Ibie "doubt.' Motive, 's-enewlly. cannot PTM*TM}!!!'^*']^.TM^,?-^*'^.,* be shown directly; If it exists at nil, It Is usually to be Inferred from facts proven. Among motives Imnelllnc men to commit crimes nf the character of the one chnr« 1 ed In this Indictment. Is that of revenge or pecuniary advantage or i?Ain. The evidence shows that the goods set flre to were owned by R eorpora- a f t e r the flre. signed and sworn to by the defendant David H. Brand, states that the actual cash value of each specific subject Insured by PUf*h policies at the time of loss, and the / R o t u n l loss and dnmnffe ny said flre to the same, and for which claim was hereby made, was as follows. Stock tion known as D. H. Brand * rom- | »» Per inventory, sound value J78.373.66. pany, of which the two defendants were stockholders at the time of, and for some time prior to. the flre. The pvldeiiiT! Is dial at tl.f time of the fire, pf the fifteen hundred shares of the capital stock of such company, issued and outstanding, John Brand held one share, Nathan Folwell-flfty shares, the Trenton Trust and Safe Deposit Company flve hundred shnros as collateral security for money d u e ~ t t ~ b y said corporation, and the defendant David H. Brand nine hurtdrod nnd forty-nine shares. It is to be noted that the Trust Company was not the nhsolute owner of the KCIO shares held by It. Its holdings were as security for the D. H. Brand Company's indebtedness to it. If this Indebtedness were paid such shares would revert to and become the property of the D. H. Brand Company. Of the remaining 1.000 shares the defendant, David H. Brand, held 949. Two motives are. presented for your consideration, one by the state nnd |RIEN In this city, on the 2d Inst., I the other by the defendants. The firistopher A., beloved husband of nnette O'Brien, and son of Mai y A. pa the late William O'Brien, In tne jith year of his age. Rhe relatives and friends of the jjvily are Invited to attend the funeral i his late residence, No. 23S Morris t-ue. ·line of funeral hereafter. It KARA In .this city, on the 30th Jpst., Patrick O'Hara. She relatives and friends of the Tilly, also Trenton Police Depart- tit, are Invited to attend the funeral In his late residence, No. 8S2 Centre pet, on Thursday morning at 8 lock. Requiem high mass at Church fc.he Sacred Heart ar;/ 1 o'clock. In- I nent at St." J6Hri 7 s Verriefery. 12-81-3t QER8 In Bordentown. N. J., on inuary 2. Elizabeth M. Rogers, wld- iw of Isaac Roger?. .he relatives and friends of · are Invited to attend the funern the Presbyterian Church, Hamil- state charges pecuniary advantage and gain to the defendant David H. Brand; and the defendants suggest rather than charge revenge that an enemy of the defendant David H. Brand, for the purpose of injuring him, set ftre to such goods.' . This motive was first suggested by"dotmsel In opening the defence to you, and secondly by the defendant David H. Brand when giving his testimony. Counsel In the opening snld it wns an enemy of the defendants that had set fire to that property; and the defendant David H. Brand testined that he had heen robbed by a set of robbers of $30.000 or $40.000 up to tho time of the flre. Now, of course, In the endeavor to discover who_ wquld_ have _the evil or wicked motive to set flre to thal"p"rop- LO«B or damage on same $13,409.13. The evidence, shows that the proofs of loss were made out by Morris and Orssnla, flre adjusters, On theit o w n printed blanks, they acting as agents for said D. H. Brand Company, and n f t e r an Inventory of the merchandise had been made by them, and gone over by the representative of the Insurance manrls^your faithful consideration of nil the evidence bearing upon it. The defendant David H. Brand has a strong Interest in the result of this trial. How strong is It? Is It strong enough to make him falslflcate or unduly color his testimony in this particular? This Is for you to say. what do you find the value of such stock at that _tlme?_ _ Is lt_.thft- amoiint_stB.ted. in the proofs of loss and adjustment or the amount testified to by the defendant, David H. Brand, or any other sum between such two umounW? ..T-ttu will "note that whatcM-i sum you find within these two amounts as the value of such stock, will be considerably less than the amount or insurance: carried theronn fnr tHft i » t w i f t « t ynn ennM flnrt Is the outside figure placed by the defendant, David H. Brand himself, to wit, 1110,000. Gentlemen, In your Judgment do not the proofs of loss made in the manner already mentioned, and sworn to by the defendant, David H. Brand, furnish the beat evidence as to the value of the stock at that time? Having determined the value Of the stock at that time, the next I n q u i r y would naturally be what was the value of teh stock at the time of placing the insurance. As already stated l9o.BOO.00 of the insurance existing at the time of t h » flm wn« renswal Insurance; that Is to say. of the policies existing at the time of the flre. so many of them as aggregated the" sum of 5»,500,000 worth of Insurance, were old Insurance renewed as the old policies had expired. The remainder of such Insurance, viz.. $33.000.00. was new In- erty it is proper for you to investigate J nery and dress goods, were not In- any charge or suggestion that Is made · eluded In the Inventory at all: that the by the defendants. It is not neces- stock damaged was Kr eater than sary that a defendant In a criminal | stated, and that the value of the goods prosecution of this character should f limited under the head of sound value e | show that some person other than he In such proofs of loss did not mean l»"C' ir a rpr''«i^?.H .n"5h, a r t h e vTM?, " ft ftre to th? K ° od '' !n 1'iestion, nor that thai was the value of the entire ^sm,n« {? J ? ,,£ B,?,^' f that Bome ntll " r P"TM"" hart "· motlve 8tock nt * ood " at f f t e "me of flre, but V« Square, N. J. on Saturday, Jan- ao to do It ls , ni , ^jty o f the state only that which was undamaged by £j,' ·"· at J ° «*· l-2-3t to prove thatjhe defendants are^the the fire. This raises an Issue of fact K (3GABER In this city, on the 1st «st., Pauline, Wife of George Rug- Iher. Ae relatives and friends of the |j!y are respectfully Invited to at- the funeral from the residence of .on. .Toseph Ruggnber, corner At- nvenue. on Friday morning, at Requiem high mass nt St. I'hurch at 9:80 o'clock. Inter- St. Francis cemeteif. l-2-2t Iri Trenton. N. J., on Jan. Aimer S. Williams. and friends, also Mer- Xo r.n. F. and A. M.; Three- ,. - . . -guilty- ones. Yet. nevertheless, it is i as to a very material branch of the » Chapter. No. 5. R. A. M.; 60. K. of P., and U. Temple. No. 8. O TI. A. are a l l end the services nt his P.-F.. No 545 Emory avenue, ling at 8 o'clock. Serbe held In Freehold, on moon. Interment at Free- Red Bank paper* l-2-3t J3DWARD R. TAYLOR Tunnr. Director. Only or,-. -"I,'. SOUTH riROAD 8T, B""' Phon.. 27. pi-z Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument .r,-,, r v , , i v . r, . ,,. bu ,, t ^ let ii flr"" ' · '·-,.,. ,,.* ALEX. Ml DONAII) o m · ,· ,, si "Al thi. g«" H - . . ! · ' . . ,-r,.t'.i ». II B A X T f t B « « · H - , . h ,,,,,,,,.. *'»· )UI^ON ' ( ' o i , K M A N the defendants' right to submit such proposition to you And though no particular person has been named by him as one of the robbers, nor any person suggested by him as one who, out of revenge, might do this dastardly deed, yet it Is one of the questions that come to you for your considers tlon. * In this connection you will remember-. ] that under th« crTM""-lTiminntioh nf the witness McKeeby. cross-examination conducted by counsel for the defendants, the fact of his having pleaded guilty to charges of i?rancl larceny was established, and further, that those larcenies were of Aonds of the'D. H. Brand Company, an'l he Is the only person to which the testimony of robberies Biven by Hie ikfeiiilaul DavlJ H. BianJ could have any reference, as far aa the evidence in this case discloses. The evidence as to McKeeby's larcenies discloses that he pleaded guilty to such larcenies upon indictments found at the present term of court. The defendant, David H. Brand, does not sny when he discovered that this man was stealing from h i m , and there Is no evidence In the case which shows when those steal- ings began. The suggestion is made. however, that ho began before the fire continued for months thereafter; h u t I n a R m v i c h McKeeby as well as the other heads of the several departments, were called in by David H. Krann" the Saturday before his departure for Grand Rapids, It would seem 'hat at that time he had no knowledge. t h a t is David H. Brand had no kno^ ledge, that McKeeby had then stealing from him. If the stealings took place at a time subsequent to the _ . M · W A B B K N KT L"1f" -- ··· Trmton, N. l To HIR« ,,_ .^_ I A M K H C . T A Y L O R * HON Phor.x tit-A. ·«·, tM N o r t h ' U n i o n of course, you will readily con- that so far as such stealings flre, olud were concerned, It could have no hearing upon the .|ue ? tlori whether he, be- rnii«- of .,,,'h stealings, had a motive t., »ot flre to this property. And if they shoui.i h n v e occurred hefnre the flre I R*K vou whether there Is anything In t h m T-I t h n t would show a motive of revr.-iit., growing out of enmity to these d e f e n d a n t s or either of t h p i n , so a n to lea.l h i m to commit t h i s incendiarism. W h a t ..l.ject would ihe undetected thief b n v r tn PE .t f( r p t,, th,, Koirtri to which he In I necen. nnd which he had op- p o r i . . . it,v of stealing. If the thief had elected and the flre followed Inquiry, and which you must decide. It is to be observed that the oaly testl- mon^ of undervaluation of stock and omission to Inventory and aa to the meaning of the phrase sound value In the proofs of loss comes from the defendant David H. Brand. Frank Robinson, an employe of said company at and for some time before the fire testified that cases of packed goods wrrc on tlie sixth floor, but he could not say how long before the flre he had seen them. Neither Morris or Greenla. who acted as agents for the D. H. Brand Company In the adjustment of loss, are produced as wlt- nesres. nor are any of the clerks or heads of the several departments, who assisted In maklns the l n v e n t m y tnr the adjusters, called and Interrogated on such matters. It would seem to me that if the character of the Inventory taken for the purpose of the adjustment and the valuation stated In the written proofs of loss reached In the way I hnve before mentioned were to be seriously questioned, that the testl- n^oney of those who mnde the inventory ana those who acted as the agents of the D. H. Brand Company In establishing the nmount of stock on hand and damaged, and who made the proofs of loss, should hnve been produced or their nbsence accounted for. In the matter of the meaning of the words '^(ound value," one of the headings for valuation if stock found In such proofs of loss no evidence other t h a n t h a t of th» defendant. David H. Brand. Is forthcoming, that It means other than that which Is inferable from the printed language which precedes such heading and which language I have already quoted. The defendant. David H. Brand, on this brnnch of the cnse. testified thi\t the value of the stock omlttefl from the Inventory Is $10.000.00. nnd t h n t the entire, stock on hand at the t i m e of the flre amounted to $105,000.00 or $110.0(10.00. Under cross-exnmlnatlon be failed to give the valuation of the stock In the several departments, saying to repeated questions pressed In that respect that he could not do It In the absence of the Inventory. Of wrmt weight Is such testimony? Mr. Mulll- gnn. a wllneio on the rmrt of the state, says that be acted as agent for this new or e x t r a Insurance was warranted bv the amount of stock that the D. H. Brand Company carried at the time f u c h was placed. The defendants' explanation for such extra Insurance, is that in the kind of business In which such company was engaged, the a m o u n t of stock on band necessarily varies according to the season of the year; that they had dull times and busy times; that In the spring and fall the business don« Is much larger than in the summer and winter; that the stock on hand is always larger In the spring and falU that this extra insurance was taken because at the time of placing it the stock *,n.~* in j o« n H /.A»% A t M«».I, a insurance, viz.. urt.ui'ir.uv, was new m- eompanles. and an agreement reached guranPe; anil ot t h l s a m o u n t J10.000.00 between-Morrl»--«iid Orecnla and the | waa placed In February, 1805, J8.000.00 representative of the Insurance com- I m March, 1905. and $20.000.00 In April. panles as to the value of the stock on | M'06. The state claims that none of hand at the time of the flre, and Ihe amount to which the snme had been damaged by the flre. The total value of the stock on hand at the time of the fire, according to theae proofs of loss as already stated,'i« $78,373.66. This. It will be observed, is $55,128.34 less than the aggregate amount of Insurance carried on such goods, the excess amount of Insurance being more than 70 per cent, of the actual value of the goods on hand at the time of the flre as shown by such proofs of loss. Such a discrepancy, if it be true, is a circumstance demanding your earnest consideration, upon the question of a wicked motive. The' correctness of this finding of values and damage as shown by such proofs of loss |B challenged by the defendants. The defendant David H. Brand testifies that notwithstanding these written statements contained In such proofs of loss, and notwithstanding they were made by the xgents of the D. H. Brand ^Company employed for such very purpose, both the value of the goods on hand at the time of the fire and those damaged by flre are considerably greater than as stated In such proofs of loss; he saying that the goods In the basement and the winter stock In boxej. ojn.j:be-sijrth floor,--ln- cluding furs, cloaks and suits, miill- pellc Nort g it t in the store had Increased beyond the amount of the existing policies, and. that w i t h o u t such additional Insurance the company would not have been protected against loss by flre to the full amount of Its stock then on hand. The evidence shows that of this old insurance I2,5)0 was placed on June 6, 1904; $3.000.00 on July 6, U04, and 125,000.00 In August, 1904. After this no Insurance was placed until February, 1905. In this month $10,000 new Insurance was taken, represented by three several policies as follows; $2,500 In the Agricultural. $2,500 in the London Assurance and $5.000 In the Royal Exchange, they all bearing date February 6, 1905. In March $S,OM new Insurance was taken, represented by four policies as follows: $1,5X of a $3,60C cjLdated March 20.. 1806. Issu"! .by-th« th River Insurance Company (the remaining $2.000 of that policy being a renewal of an old policy for that amount); $500 In the Glens Falls Insurance Company, policy dated March 21, 1908; $8,000 in the SprlnRfleld Fire and Marine Insurance Company, policy dated March Zl, 1905, and $3,000 in the Lrfmdon. Liverpool and Globe Insurance Company, policy dated March 21, 1906. In April. $20.000 new Insurance was taken, represented by seven policies, each dated April R, 1905, the amounts and names of the companies being as follows: $2.000 In the National Union.' $1.500 in the Providence of Washington. R. I.; $8.500 In tho North River; $2.600 In the Hartford of Hartford. Conn.; $2.500 In the National of Hartford, Conn.; $2.500 In the New Hampshire.' and $2,500 in the Federal. What Induced the placing of this extra $38.000 insurance in 1S05? Was It because the stock of merchandise had so increased from the August preceding as to warrant such extra insurance? You will remember that the defendant. David II. Dim. a, les- tllied that with the exception of two small departments music and candy de- S artments on thfl first floor, all the other epartments had been Installed by September, 1P04. The only statement of assets and liabilities o! the D. H. Brand Company, founded upon an actual Inventory, producer! In this case. Is that made by a New York firm of accountants named Barrows, -- Wivie - Guthrle, and which gives such rissets and liabilities us of November 1. 19W, ihousrh made l a t f r tn poln: after giving this testimony, also salrl Jhat all the Invoices for the purchases that went Into the State street store during said eighteen months were not now on hand, and that such missing invoices 'represented between $30.000 and $«,000 of additional purcnases. And you will remember that in so testifying he called attention to the fact that the invoices as entered Into tfie Adairisori'ledger for the six rrionhs of 1905 totalled a larger sum than the invoices produced for the corresponding six months. In the matter of the entry of purchases ifi such book he also testified that the entry of purchases were not always made as of the month they actually arrived in the store. That such entries were made onlj after the Involcea" had been checked* oft by the heads of the departments for which such Kunds had been bought, so that generally some of the goods entered as of one month were actually on hand the previous month. So that you will obieive that entries made in such book for the month of January, 1905, may have been In fact of invoices dated In December, 1905, and even earlier, and which Invoices, if on hand, would -be indicated In the amount testified to by D. H. Brand as the total of invoices for December, .1904. or one of the preceding montns. In the endeavor, then, to uncertain the amount of stock on hind at the placing of such new Insurance we will tiave to take the defendant David H. Brand's testimony bA*ed. on. the. .invoices produced as the more likely to give us that amount correctly. If this additional sum of $40,000, being the highest figure named by the defendant David H. Brand aa representing the amount of the missing invoices, be added to the aggregate sum taken from the Invoices, then the total purr chases for the eighteen months preceding the fire would amount to $247,143.15, actual figures; the Increase by such addition being a trifle less than 20 per cent, of the amount tufcen from the invoices themselves. Mr. Foreman, add the »um of $40,000 to the last figures given you, add it up, and you will have such sum of $247,143.15, and but little figuring when you got into the jury room will demonstrate that said sum of $40,000 is about 20 per cent, of the aggregate amount taken from the Invoices. The defendant, David H. Brand, said that the business in the State street store in the months of December, 1904 and March, April and May of 1905 w« the teat business that he had ever done, and that the business done in 1905 was better than that done in 1904. The defendant, David H. Brand, admits that he caused the false entries to be made In the invoice books of 1904, and that he read off the raised amounts to be entered into the false sales book. In explanation thereof he says that his purpose was to' show as large-a-business done-ln-the State street store In 1904 as he was doing In 1905, In order that hla statement to Mr. Hlrschman that the State street store business of 1904 was a* good as It was in 1905 might be established. And In this connection he says that hla orders were that the invoice bookii of 1904 were to be falsified to the amount of $50,000, and that the false sales book w»s to be raised $70.000. And he also says that the falsification of both the Invoice book and of the sales book was begun about the middle of May. 1906, and the evidence 1 that such falsifications were completed within a week or ten days thereafter; so' that we have fiom the defendant, David H Bmnd's own lips directly, that the business at the State street store in 105 up to the middle or latter part of ME y W*B larger than In 1094: and Inasmuch as he falsely Increased the amount of sales for 1904 to the extent of $70,000.00 that that was the Increase In the business of 1905 over that of 1S04 up to the time of the making of such falsifications, or that the business of 1906 wojld show such an Increase at some future date. That date Is not fixed; but as the fal- sInMion were TMade, according -to David H. BranfTs testimony, to p i o v e to Htrschmann that his statement as of time. The defendant, David H. Brand, I to the business was true, It would seem i .l.-tectlon. another question might the tire underwriters In verifying tb. . i,,,t (,, ,,. t h i s t h i e f was | Inventory prepared by Morris nnd bill I n n s m u r h r . . n " n i i e d In t i t " e m j i l o v of th |"im for :i long t i m e m h s e q u t n t to Ihe flr». nnrl M« I n d l c l r n f n l did not take Y 8 E R Ore, the iriferenr (Intoned n t the ti If h l R ctenllnpi · ' ' h ' P n p t l n u · ' U M p n n v " . I t H I l K I a t h i e f , b r l · l i n t r o v the ve the opportunit t h a n a year n f t e r such . .. flre, even Is I h n l if II,,, l l v n l..../un, el«e In Ihe e m i j l n y r.f (he r a t | . m t ! p r o p o f i l i o n h i s d e t e c t i o n , would thing" t h a t he had of stealing? T*)«n that he nnd hlR ,, checked the Unme on such Inventory; nnd that he and Morris nnd drennia rtgrecd upon the valuos of both the stock on h n n d and of that part thereof t h n t wns dnmsgerl. H» also snys t h n t the v n l u e ,,f the stock reported to h i m hy Mi.Tls nnd Orcenla totalled the sum of »R2.»2!Ufl; t h a t In verifying , t h i s Inventory "shorts end overs" were ' f e m i n n t . TV testifies that no othrr Inventory or listing of assets and liabilities were made of the State Street store stuck and business before the flre of J u l y 2. 1905. Frnm this statement It apri^-ns that the merchandise In the Rtate Street store on November 1, 1904. amounted to the sum of $113,600. This gives us a starling point In our Investigation as to what wos the merchandise on hand at the time of the placing of the new Insurance In the following Fe.brunry. March nnd April, end which. RS I Imvo stated, amounted in the aggregate to the sum of $38,000. At this point, however, we fire confronted with the ffinf t i i R t no Riles book or Inventory "f stock ni h n n d Plnce November 1, 1 ' i n i . IH in evidence. Mr. Fell testified t h n t ho mnrio nn Inventory in 19%. bn! t h n t this was not made by taking a "«' nml account of stock actually on Iruirl, b u t fro- the Invoice bonks of I f t f X . after the s n r n o i VV hride been falslfl.-.l M' the e n t e r i n g I "K therein of false, im-.,!,·-- ! ll(1 Such false I n v e n t , , r x h n i n . ' ' ·' ! "" offered i n evirlen.^ ' i i - l ' M , -,.,. , ' | ( would hnve heen " f " - " ''·" ii - - , ] been offered. Tli" · ' · ' I " " ' · · . . : · n Rrand, a n d A n n n -I'." -""-. i ^ » p r- : · · . ! ' n the company kept i - ! ' · · · i ^\- ' u . v i ,; I ^j t h e snles o f t h e i , ' i n . i n i , i c ' i ^ ' yenrs 1904 n n d V' i . , : i . - ' i , , , ,' of the flre. T h f \ . ·"· ' · · · ' i f ' ·· ···,'· · · . making of n fals" · l · ' · · . . ,.ir. · ' the business of 11-" ' ' ' ' - i f 1 ' Mnr, 1 ! '" t for the yeflr 19("n ' ' M ' " ' th.'« r t ' ( " sales books--true i.l"- ' . i i ' - i r In evidence. Th" . " i ·"· '· · f , these falsified I"- ' · ! ' , · be considered n I · ; i - chntt;e, r,ifprnn.'' ' · ! · · ' « , at t h i s time sin ' '' ren^.in of the -\ i . . , ' ' t ^ documnts Bhowiiu 1 '" · ' * r " opening (if t h r , ·, - «· ' , M u r c h , 1904, t" - · · 190T\ we nre .'"i i ' ' ' ^ · ..' nt of that the time when the expected Investigation was to be made had some relation to the period during which the books were to show such amount of business. Having this statement of larger business, nnd the conduct of the defendant, David H. Brand, In the swelling of the sales of 1904 by $70,000.00. In mind, let us look at the ag- prepntp nmount of the purchases for the Rtato street store a^ testified to by the d e f e n d a n t , David H. Rrand. for 'he first ten m o n t h s of I f i f t i u p to Novem- 1904, nnd consider such aggre- r 1, orted by the discovered. f ' l n t l o n to the n m o u n t of mer- hrml n R r r r :"· of t h a i .1-1 m ' - i t h - i inn-, luises f n r the , l o , » 11 t - . t i i i M tn bv the . i - - , , i IT n r a n n , a f t e r dei . f i , . . ' . ..--, m u c h t h e r e o f as, l i i - -,··;! ' i n n n v . w e n t to the "i ··' ''·· in.l R f t e r a d d i n n r · ' · ' ' ' f ^ u c h aggregate, M,-. j i . . j . o n t ; , iff of increase , r m i - » h - a : t n v n l r p f i f o r a l l i ^ " n n v ' n t h e . n m n u r i t s t o « 1 , 1 . . : TM n i Mr . F.frenmn. · L I T ' M' v o u r p^d and ·' ". i."i n u t down t h a t .^,,.,;, r , i ^ T C Bowing th, "M T ' , i , ^,,m, then.'rforn · · · "i." -nei t h e n m n u n t " "' "" "'· t h n t went I n t o · 1 , » . ' · l n , o f r o m Its held v · .-mher 1, 1S04. nt i h e I n . - n t . i r v mnrle b y I h o o i i i i M i . t . xhows t h a t t h e r e "" ·· "i i h i'( mercrmnn'lBe ""'. l e n v l n g $BO,1S5 01 . i m r . u n l of the gootlfi i ' I T had been sold m I n " o p e n i n g o f t h n t n ;1 N o v p m h p r 1. 1H04 '· p u i n n d n r t h » }nsi i e n t e r e d on t h » pad I .,.1^1 nn, a n d d e n i i c t ·^hni-lnit Mio ,im unit 'i q i " t in n In tlio t^i.. 11 ' i ' n d ». t ii,,. n-f.l durlnir t h e _ these figures. Put ilo»n 1113.500 and mark t h a t stock oa h a n d November 1, 1901: $56,997.16, and mark that purchase of November and December. 1004, iin'l of January, February, March ar.il April, 1906. Ailil Oil. ui and Hi? b.l»l will b« $170, 497.15; and this by comparison with the total of purchases up to November 1. 1904, shows a dec-ream of $3.ir7.S6. A n l If no more goods had been disposed of or sold during the six months commencing November 1, 1904. and en'llng May 1. 1906, than had been sold from the opening of the store In March. 1901 to Novemhor 1. 1WI seven and a half rnonths-the a m o u n t of stock that would bo on hand on Mny 1, according to this showing, would h« $110,812.15, as compared with $113,500 of November 1, 1904. Now, In this connection, I want to call your attention to the fact that the last lot of new Insurance "amounting to $20,000 was placed on April «, 1905; and I have_included In this calculation all-of the purehases-for the State street store on the basis of such invoices for the entire month of April, 1900; also that the defendant, David H. Brand, himself said t h a t December, March, April and May during this period, were the best months he had; and also that he said, in explanation of falsifying the Invoice books of 1904, and the making of -the false .sales book covering the business of 1904, that he did It In order to make good his word that he had given to Hirschmnn that the business of 190b was as good as it was in 1905, and that the raising of the Invoices by the sum of $50,030 » n d the sales $70,000, was for the purpose of proving his statement in that particular. Now, that statement was made by him to Hlrsch- man in the early part of May, 1905; and the falsifications were made to back up his statement in the latter part of That month. 'Bpeanmg In the early part of May of his business being good he could of course, not be referring to any part of 1905 save that which had before.' Now, what did he mean by that raising of the sales by $70,000. One Inference would be that his business. . f o r . ""» -February, March, April and part of May was better by_ $70,060 tSar, it was for the whole year of 1904. Did he mean that? He claims to have done a very large business In 1905. Now, if a comparison of these figures taken from his own testimony shows tha't If the business was no better in 1905 than it was In 1904 that the amount of stock in the first part of May was less than it was on November 1, 1904; that is, $110,- 842.U on May 1, 1905, aa compared with $133,600 on November 1, 1904, wbflt will you «»y could have boon the amount of stock on hand at the time In Febrtury and March and April when this additional insurance was placed therton «g B rc»,ntlng, as I hnve already »»ld, 138,000, If the business done tn 1905, as testified to by the defendant Ifcurld H. Brand, up_tn the middle of. May, was 8 i eater by $70,000 than It W" In 1904, and for the purpose of showing which the falsifications were made. If you deduct the whole sum of $50,000, that being his own showing of the Invoice value of the extra business don*, from that sum of $110,342.15, you have but $60,342.15 representing the stock that he had on hand on May 1, 1905. But let us assume that when the defendant David H. Brand raised his sales for 1904 $70,000 In order to show that his business for that year was as gpod M he claimed It was hi 1905 he did not mean that the business for January. February, March, ftrll and half of May wa« better by $70,000 than it was for the whole of 1904, but only in proportion, viz., as four and a half months in 1905 would be to nine and a half months In 1904, and which seems to me to be more likely to have been his meaning, there would be at the rate-of $7,368.42 a month, and this multiplied by four as representing the four months of January, February, March and April of 1905 would mike his business larger during said months of 1905 than It was In 1904 by the sum of $29,473.68. Reducing this to the invoice value of the goods sold on the basis of $50,000 Invoice value to $70,000 realized on sales thereof, taking SO per cent, of the gross value as prolit. we have the Pum of $6,843.M to deduct from tha:t sum, leaving" $2J.630.58"To lie deducted from said sum of $110,242.15. and that would leave the amount of Ms stock on hand on the first day of May, 1905, $87,711.57. Now, Mr. Foreman, on another page put these figures down, $«0,S42.15 value of stock on hand on May 1, 1905, If the whole of said $50,000 is deducted from said sum of $110,342.15, and mark that value of stock on hand May 1. 1905, and on another line $87,711.67 if but $22,630.58 Is deducted therefrom. In using the Invoice amounts as indicating the purchases in 1905, I have Included, as you may have noticed, the whole amount of the purchases for April. 1906, though the last of the new Insurance was taken on the sixth of that month. And this because whether all of such purchases were actually on hnnd at that time or not, they could all have been ontlclnntcd at ouch time. Now, these calculations are made not because we can say they accurately flx the amount of tie stock on hand when such extra Insurance was taken, but because they are permissible deductions to be made from the only information the defendant has given us on the subject of the amount of merchandise actuarty onTiand at any time afty November 1, 1904. and because they may furnish you some guide to aid you In determining the nmount of such stock he had at the time of placing such new Insurance. You are not bound by such deductions. It Is your province to draw such conclusions from such figures as In your Judgment under your nith. t h e y seem to warrant. Now, nt the t l n i e ^ of placing the new Insurance the d e f e n d ant, David H. B r a n d , hn.l the piles books that are now m i p p l r i E r . he hi.l It in his power then, even w i t h o u t t n i k Ing an actual I n v e n t o r y , t.. r i c ' o r n ' i n e with a tolerable desree of ici-m.i.'v ' h e amount of Insurable p r n p , n ) i - ' ^1 on h n n d . But we have not th. b. . f i t of such sales hooks nml ' pclled t o d o conol'ier , ; , ; , . w r , i , i ,\ n m o n g f l g u r e s f u r n i s h " . i · · ' · · · : · fondant. Now, on i h f i " 1 - ' 1 ' "' plven by him. can y,-,u F I . . M- . u. t h a t at the time of p i n c l TM « · ·' · insurance in February, M i · ( 1 A p r i l , h e h a d any mor" ^ i , k t h n n he had d u r i n g th.- : .11 · U04 nnd up to No* . i n . " · y«nr, d u r i n g w h i c h t u t " · · - ' i r · carried by him did rmi . i , . i " : ·· Tan you say from hi-. , . . · · from any other te.Min.- ' . - i that o n April f i . 1W5. · . · · , ( " · · of new Insurance wn,t i, , " , ;. brought up his I n s m n the oompnny hnrl s u i ' i , "" hand to warrant the n - i ; amount of Insurance" n , v after taking I n t o . - , w i d e r . . testimony of the d e f e n d a n t . Brand himself, on the «ub]«ot of the stock-on hand, that on April 6. 1906. he then entering upon a month which h« (himself said waa one of the beat, In connection with the evidence fornlflhed by the Inventory and profits of )o«ii m to the amount of itock on hand at ^i« time of the are, that h« at such tme when h" pieced hU extra 120,000 worth of insurance, could have honestly believed t h n t he had a sufficient amount of stock on hand, or w«t going to have before the dull season In June began so as to warrant the placing of *ucb extra Insurance? You will remember the testimony of Mr. Barden. Mrs. Adamson and D. H. Brand as to the occasion when Mrs. Adamson came down with the slip of. paper showing the amount of JH1,- 000.00. Barden says that he went to D. H. Brand's office on the second floor of the State street store and talked will! him aliout ther laHtr aiAOufll uf Insurance he was carrying; that D. H. Brand sent for Mrs. Ad»m«on and she brought down a slip and handed It to Mr. D. H. Brand and he showed it to him: the tesftpiony being that he held it up and said "see," that it was for the sum of 141,000.00 and that the defendant, D. H. Brand, mid th»t that was the amount of stock that he had Qn hand. Mrs. Adamson says t h n t it represented the total amount of purchiBea to that tate, and that was all she could frfve as she kept no account of ?ales. The defendant, David H. Brand, say* that such amount only represented purchases, and moreover, that Mr. Bar. den did hot ask for the amount of stock that he h»d at that time, but that he asked for the total amount of purchases, which do you believe? . Do you think that the insurance agent who was placing the Insurance for that company and who came thert to '"Ik about insurance would *nk how much was bought or how much w*" on hand. If you find that Mr. Barden states th« truth, that occuaence is vs./ slsdifl- cant on the question whether the defendant. David H. Brand, knew at the time of taking the new In.uranoe tfc«t he had not sufficient stock OB band to warrant so doing. Now in line with the State's con! t e n t l o n that the defendant, David H. Brand, deliberately over-Insured his stock with the crlnflnal purpose of cheating the insurance companies, the State offered evidence whlco It elalms shows- that the David H. Br^nd Co were doing a losing business during the year 1S05, and that such a loss was of such a character a- ta move this defendant to plot and execute this crime. In support oi tnls "contention thoi jffeied the books of the Trenton Trust and Safe Deposit Company showing the account of the said David H. Brand Company »tth said Trust ^oaipanyfar the-flrst se-.--n months *f toe y»-r last; a transcript of such books covering such period, and showing such financial transactions, being before you, and known «« State's tifehlblt 7a, and by which It appears that at the close of the banking hours of every banking day In the months of January, February, Mivch a.nd April, 190B, except three day. in April, vll.. the 96th. 87Fh and 28th, the said D. H Brand A Com- pany bad over-drawn their cald »"- count; and that on three lays of the month of May, vis., the lith. 2«ih and J7th. and two days In June, v i i 'he 10th and 17th, and on Vlie flr«. , a v of July, l»0f, the day preceding i lie fire, the said account was araln o r drawn. The transcript shows thM during the months of January, February, Marotl, and the first twenty-five dart of the month of April, during all »f which time the D. H. Brand 4 Company's banking account was over* i drawn, said company made frequent deposits, and while the deposits upon eight of the days from January l i»05, to April 22. 1906, wai · u f f i c i e n a m o u n t to meet the o v e r d r day before, they were not sufficient to meet »aid overdrafts and the checks and drafts of said company which came in and were paid bv the bank the day of such deposits; with the result, as already s t a t e d , that on not one b a n k i n g days d u r i n g such was there ever a balance In favor of such company at the close of banking hours, but Ur.1 on the contrary," on each of such days, the company's account was overdrawn The defendant, notwithstanding this showing from the transcript of the Trenton Trust and Safe Deposit Company's books, claims that the company's account was not overdrawn during suon period because of the fact that there was on deposit In the safe deposit branch of the said Trust Company, the sum of 600, in c»sh, placed there by himself ts security for any overdrafts that might occur In said D. H. Brand A Company's account, and that because of such deposit, whtit the books of the Trust Company showed overdrafts, there were, as matter of fact, no overdrafts. The evidence shown that some time in Oetobtr, UOL David H. Brand deposited H.JOO In cash In his own name In said Trust Company, and that It wae pledged by him as security for any overdrafts the David H. Brand Company. 'The evidence also shows that on April II. 1M6, this sum was turned over to thj said Trust Oo«ip«n7, as trusts?, under ·sreement bearing date April 13, 1906; certificate ef deposit being executed by said Trust Company to Itself as trustee Exhibit, State 7t; nidi igreement being Exhibit Btate 77. This agreement shows that such sum from that time was held in trust as security for the perfoimancc of a certain covenant In a lease In said agluement referred to. Tnls « B .««BMnt also shOni that the trustee acknowledged that such sum w«t received from the H. Brand Company, and that upon performance of the said covenant by said D. H. Brand * Company, the said sum held In trust was to be paid to the said D. H. Brand Company. Assuming that this deposit ef 14.300, though in the us rise of D. H. Brand, 1* to be treated -· e» ·-- et of the D. Brand A Company before It passed out of the n *me of David H. Brand, the evidence shows.that notwithstanding this deposit of K5007 the account of Davtd M. Brand Company, with «*ld Trust Company, was overdrawn In exeeto of thai ·pnclAl daposit a_ numbar nf "-^? t)n tween January 14, UW. vd March i IXC, tb wit, on Jinun4, 14, tat ovo.-ai-. ».sB.l7: Jan"«ry M. H. " * fi.7K.S8; January K, K K24.14: February U , 17, B,2*S.S1; February*, M/IJi; February , 14,728,88; Februa.f K M.MT.M; February a, ».!·» n; March 1, M,B10.17; March 2. «,I16.«7, ant Vf.rch 4, KMT.4T. --,) which you *ili find in the trvnaript tn red fif- l"t MECHANICS NAllONAl Hsw Jersey 1811 !«·«.« JT» Erw««m 0. K«I*» F««nraA!ro W. Ro-- u-o, JOHM D. Ru«, R. SW.KHI, Caihfef, HA»V D. T.f i,Ut, .-^yi M, · Q. Tto- J«M, V. Ku«,-, The P*iw!DKT wd Diniuom ot The VWUHW* N«n«**(i BAKU o^Trenton, New J«.My, *nX« B i*«l ph r-re IB Mb»iU^ff Ibe following Bummarj of the ««air« of ib« t-nfc tt th« ek)i«4rf bueiness December St, 1DM: CA±-IT»L STC«.-»- five H«n^i «d Thonntid Dol'Mfl (1900.000). Suanco Sir Hundred «nd Thirty-flv« thouirnd T»o H"« dred nd Seventy DelUn S63S.270). Font Million One Hund.ed »nd Si ihorj ind TOTAL A^., 0 Six Million and Eighty-two Thoqf^M Hund.ed and Twenty-two Doll-i (J6.062.622), invtated in Securities of tbe M.xit 3ubrt»iH»l KBit Piin o» DkrC*n» Th-w (8) jv cent on 'v(savings) Mconnf p»ld or oieiited J»nii«.y 1 vd J»ly I. On active (bn«ine«) Moonntt, OM »-d OLO b-'J (1)) p*r : daily baiauos*. niony In or.Iei H« also testifies that he was In the I proximate Idea of IV i- 1904, nnd .Mil nary 1 March and A p r i l of 180S- C O A T S H I K I On J.J Off lit,, j (, Mai'k Down On Boy*' Clothiiiij AH sixes 2H to 17 Ye i KHH1CH) hoys' Suits 1 "oys' Reefers hoys' Overcoats] You can save $1 to $4 on any hoys' nothing rhaso vou make here now, and with that saving see Ll -« high rlnss, stylish, serviceable clothes andnfftii assortment to select from. All stylos, ^ teht sizes. Prices Now $1.50 to $/ Prices Were $2,50 lo $12

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 21,100+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free