1903-12-03-New York Times-Used Shipbuilding Bonds

New York Times

3 December 1903, page 16

USED SHIPBUILDING BONDS

Dresser Refuses to Answer Questions, Saying They Might Incriminate Him.

What Daniel Leroy Dresser did with 316 bonds of the United States Shipbuilding Company, received from John W. Young under certain conditions, occupied all the time of contending counsel in the hearing before Referee Stanley W. Dexter yesterday of the reclamation proceedings connected with Mr. Dresser's bankruptcy. Two hundred of the bonds are claimed by both sides in the present controversy.

W. H. Andrews, counsel for Mr. Young, explained to the referee that the transfer of the bonds from Mr. Young to Mr. Dresser took place in Paris, and that the conditions necessitated their return. When the time came to return them, Mr. Andrews said, Mr. Dresser was able to supply only 116 of the lot.

Mr. Dresser explained that while he had always considered the bonds as belonging to Mr. Young, he had entered into a verbal agreement with the latter whereby he was allowed to put up a certain part of them as collateral for a loan. The receipt to Mr. Young, stating that the bonds were held for the latter, Mr. Dresser said, was explained to him as a "mere matter of form."

Counsel for Mr. Young quoted from this receipt a clause to the effect that in no event should any of the holdings be disposed of prior to Aug. 1, 1903, and asked how Mr. Dresser "dared under that language use the bonds as collateral."

Under the advice of counsel Mr. Dresser declined to answer.

"Upon what grounds does the witness decline to answer?" was asked.

"Because it might tend to incriminate or degrade me." said Mr. Dresser, still under advice of counsel.

The referee sustained the witness, and the question was reserved for ruling by Justice Holt.

"Did you not state in my office on May 27," demanded Mr. Dayton, "that if the proceedings were withheld until June 9 Mr. Young's stock and bonds would be returned to him and that these securities were not in the hands of creditors?"

Again the witness declined to answer, and another wrangle ensued, which ended in another reference of the question to the higher court. The hearing then adjourned until Wednesday of next week at 10 o'clock.