Press enter after choosing selection

Against The Electric Sugar Refining Co.

Against The Electric Sugar Refining Co. image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

The case of the Electric Sugar Keflnng Co. against Olive E. Friend was decided last Friday evening, the jury rendering a verdict of no cause for action. The judge cliaiged the jury about 5:3Ü and one ballot was taken bé'ore supper, the result being 11 to 1 in favor of Mrs. Friend. Af ter supper, all were unanimous in a verdict for the defense, and about 8:30 o'clock the verdict was rendered and the jury discharged. The verdict gave almost universal satisf action to those who had [ïeard the trial, with the exception of those who were prosecuting the case. It is probable that no case has beei more thoroughly tried in this circuí in years this one. The attorneys fo both sides fought hard and brough out every possible point that wouk be of advantage. The argument made by the Messrs. Sawyer an Knowlton for Mrs. Friend, and by Mi Whitman for the compauy, wer among the best ever made here. Th New York attorney for the company E. P. Wheeler, was a disappointmeñ to those who lieard him in the closin argument, which did not compare fa orably with either of those made be fnri HJ1C. The opening argument was made b Mr. Whitman, who claimed tliat th money paid by the coiupany had bee used by the Friends in extravagant lir ing; that $1915.000 liad been paid theu besides which $90,000 had been ex pended by the company in equippin the factory. He contended that th money paid by Cotterill and Robertso was the money of the oompauy, anc that if Cotterill had been a party t the fraud, he would not have broke into the secret room and exposed th fraud until he and JRobertson had ha time to dispose of their stock. J. C. Kuowlton opened for the de fense and in a clear, short argument presented the t'acts tothe jury asviewec by his side. His conteution was tha by the acts of Cotterill f rom 1884 t 1889, the corporation was cognizant o the frauds, and that it was Cotteri and Robertson who had paid th money and were now really seeking t recover, not the company. A. J. Sawyer followed his colleagu for the defense and made by far tlie strongest argument made, and one which had an effect upon the jury as shown by;their faces. lie followed through the testimony froin beginuing to ena and showed the many waya ia which Cetterill liad shown his knowledge of the fraud all the vhile. He scorched Cotterill roundly for the part he had taken, and inclnded Robertson in sonie of his arraignments. He nowed that Mis. Friend personally ïad no knowledge of the fraud and bat she received none of the money. The closing was made by E. P. Vheeler. of New York, who made bilt ttle impresáion upon the jury. His fforts weie cfirected to show that the estiniony failed to connect Ootterill ith the frand. Judge Kiiuie delivered a fair and npartial charge to the jury. His intructions were that if the jury believed rom the testinioiiy that Cotterill or iobertsnn were aware of the fraud, his would be acknowledged as the ompany's being acquainted with the and and they could uot recover.


Ann Arbor Argus
Old News