Opinion
09-13-1905
SEASTREAM et al. v. NEW JERSEY EXHIBITION CO.
Frank P. McDermott, for the State. James Benny, for Seastream. Allen McDermott and Warren Dixon, for the other accused.
Suit for injunction by August Seastream and others against the New Jersey Exhibition Company. On order to show cause why Seastream and certain others should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for attempting to improperly influence the administration of justice. Heard on affidavits and oral evidence. Accused adjudged guilty.
See 59 Atl. 914.
Frank P. McDermott, for the State. James Benny, for Seastream. Allen McDermott and Warren Dixon, for the other accused.
PITNEY, V. C. There are certain facts, leading up to and involved in the offense charged against the accused, which are either admitted or so thoroughly established by the evidence as not to be disputed, and a proper consideration of the real matter to be determined requires that they should be stated quite fully and in their precise order of occurrence. On the afternoon of Saturday, May 7, 1904, counsel for complainants presented to me at Morristown the bill of complaint herein, in which August Seastream and Charles C. Alexander were named as complainants, and to which were annexed several affidavits, among which was one by Seastream, dated May 6, 1904, In the handwriting of and sworn to before Mr. Mungo J. Currie, one of the masters of this court. The object of the bill was to restrain Sunday baseball playing on certain inclosed baseball grounds on the westerly edge of the city of Bayonne, in Hudson county. Upon that bill and affidavits an order to show cause with interim restraint was advised, returnable on Monday, the 16th of that month, at Jersey City. Mr. Seastream was an ashman on one of the Annex ferryboats running from the Jersey City ferry house of the Pennsylvania Railroad to Brooklyn. On the morning of May 12th Mr. Seastream, while standing in the ticket seller's small box, on the Jersey City end of the ferry, was accosted by the accused Benjamin T. Haagensen, who is a pilot and captain in the employ of the ferry company, and usually commanding the ferry boat Newark, running between Jersey City and Cortlandt street. Haagensen is a well educated, bright, and highly intelligent Norwegian, and speaks English fluently. Seastream is a Swede, who speaks English with difficulty and a great lack of distinctness. He is apparently uneducated, illiterate, and by no means bright. Besides, it abundantly appears on his examination that he did not understand the true meaning of questions which were put to him in plain English. They had known each other for several years, but, while both for a considerable time had been in the employ of the ferry company, their several occupations did not bring them together, and they had not spoken to each other more than three or four times. In fact, Haagensen did not know Seastream's name. He knew him only by his nickname of "Husky." The result of the interview just mentioned, and several others succeeding it, was that they proceeded together on that day to the office of Mr. Robert Davis, on Mercer street, Jersey City, and there found his son, Mr. William J. Davis, one of the accused.
The case shows, and it was an admitted fact, that Mr. Robert Davis was largely interested pecuniarily in the defendant corporation. A conversation took place between Mr. William J. Davis, Haagensen, and Seastream which resulted in the calling up through the telephone by Davis of Mr. Howard Griffith, another of the accused, who was the president or vice president of the defendant corporation, a practicing lawyer, and one of the solicitors of the defendant herein, and having his office at No. 1 Exchange Place, Jersey City. Mr. Griffith prepared an affidavit which Mr. Seastream, after having been supplied by Mr. Davis with a drink of brandy, signed and verified before Mr. Peter Bentley, one of the masters of this court, who was called on the 'phone by Mr. Davis or Mr. Griffith for that purpose. That affidavit was retained by Griffith. About eight or nine days later Mr. Griffith called on Seastream at his home in Bayonne in the evening and procured his signature to a paper, which had been previously signed by Mr. Alexander, the other complainant, which was addressed to the counsel of the complainants, requesting them to discontinue the suit.
On the return day of the order to show cause, May 16th, the matter stood over by consent until Monday, the 23d, at the same place, when it was reached about the middle of the day, and the defendants produced their request to discontinue. Upon this request the court declined to act, but the presentationof it resulted in the amending of the bill by adding several other complainants. The complainants then read the affidavits annexed to the bill and a batch of additional affidavits, which they had served on the defendants and the reading of which occupied the time until the hour of final adjournment. At that moment the defendants served upon the complainants' solicitors their answering affidavits, which included Seastream's second affidavit. This was the first that counsel for complainants knew of the making of the second affidavit. The hearing was adjourned to the morning of Thursday, the 26th, at the same time and place. Between the 23d and the 26th the complainants' solicitors procured the affidavits of Mr. Currie and Mr. Griswold, a clerk in the law office of the complainants' solicitors, of the circumstances attending the taking of the first affidavit, and early in the morning of the 26th issued a subpœna ad testificandum for Mr. Seastream, returnable forthwith at the Chancery Chambers, Jersey City, and sent out Mr. Griswold to serve it. On that morning, before proceeding to read their affidavits, counsel for defendants in open court asked counsel for complainants whether they intended to act upon the request to discontinue the suit as to Seastream and Alexander, to which they answered that they had seen Mr. Alexander and that he wished the suit continued in his name, and that they had not been able to communicate with Mr. Seastream, but had issued a subpoena for him and hoped to get him into court for an examination by the court. The reading of the affidavits (among which was Seastream's second affidavit, made in Davis' office) on the part of the defendants then commenced. As soon as Seastream's second affidavit was reached I stopped the further reading, the counsel of complainants presented the affidavits of Currie and Griswold before mentioned, and stated that they were informed that Seastream's second affidavit had been procured from him by threats of his losing his job on the ferry boat, and asked the court to investigate it. Defendants' counsel joined in this request, but I declined to investigate personally, and immediately dictated a message to County Judge Blair, requesting him to institute such investigation, and also requested counsel on each side to send copies of the affidavits to Judge Blair. The reason of this action was their incongruousness, as was displayed by placing them in parallel columns. Those conflicting affidavits are inserted here. "State of New Jersey, Hudson County—ss.:
"August Seastream, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I reside at 525 Avenue B, Bayonne. My residence immediately adjoins the easterly corner of the baseball grounds, corner of Forty-Sixth street and Avenue B. I am informed and know that baseball games have been played the last two Sabbaths, but myself and wife were absent for most of the time during which these games were played. The noise that results from the playing of the games and the cheering is very annoying and would disturb the rest and slumber of our two young children, who are respectively one year and four months and four months. I am the owner of the house where I reside, and the property is now worth at least one thousand dollars less than it was previous to the coming of the baseball grounds. The crowd is a large one, consisting of several thousand. At present it does not pass my house, as the gate nearest it has not yet been opened; but I am informed and believe it will be opened when the sewer in Avenue B, which is in course of construction, is completed. I would never have bought the two lots which I own, or constructed the house thereon, had I known these baseball grounds would be laid out.
August Seastream.
"Sworn and subscribed before me, at Bayonne, this 6th day of May, 1904.
"M. J. Currie,
"Master in Chancery of New Jersey."
"State of New Jersey, Hudson County—ss.:
"August Seastream, of full age, being duly sworn, on his oath doth depose and say: I have resided in the city of Bayonne for about four years, and own the dwelling house and two lots immediately adjoining Eastern League Park, the baseball grounds of the Jersey City Club. I am the person whose property is described in the affidavit attached to the bill, in which I am made a complainant with Alexander and others against the New Jersey Exhibition Company, and who is represented to have signed the same. I did sign a paper on or about the 6th instant, which was represented to me to be a petition in favor of the playing of baseball Sundays on the grounds adjacent to my home on the westerly side of Avenue B. The affidavit purporting to be signed by me has been read to me, and I declare the same to be absolutely and unqualifiedly false, and said paper was at no time read to me. I was not absent from my home on the 1st of May as represented, for I viewed the game with the Rochester Club from the window of my home, and at no time during that game was the applause audible when my windows were closed; and as to any annoyance to my children, their sleep could not possibly have been disturbed, and as a matter of fact my little baby slept throughout the game. I consider the locating of the handsome and beautiful park in Bayonne a great benefit to the neighborhood, for it will attract people who will be apt to locate in the city, and have never stated otherwise to any one at any time. The grounds and the ball games played there are a great relief from the crowds which are attracted by the shore resorts every summer through our streets. The gate in the fence on the Avenue B side of the ball grounds was located there with my permission; the Exhibition Company having rebuilt their fence when they learned that it obstructed the viewfrom the lower floor windows of my home. All statements accredited to me other than as appear in this affidavit are false and untrue.
"August Seastream.
"Sworn and subscribed to before me this twelfth day of May, A. D. nineteen hundred and four, in Jersey City.
"Peter Bentley,
"Master in Chancery of New Jersey."
The reading of the affidavits and argument thereon proceeded, but was not finished on that day, and was adjourned to Monday, June 6th, at Newark. Mr. Griswoid attempted to serve the subpoena on Seastream on the morning of the 26th by watching and inquiring for him at the ferry terminal and house in Jersey City, but did not succeed, though he spent nearly two hours in the effort. In the meantime, between 10 and 11 o'clock, Haagensen met Seastream in the ferry house at Jersey City, induced him into the large brick building adjoining the great train shed, and placed him in the trainmen's waiting room, and induced him to stay there until about 2 o'clock. At that time he called on him, took him across the river by the Desbrosses Street Ferry, gave him his dinner in New York City, detained him there until after 4 o'clock p. m., took him back to Jersey City, and about 5 o'clock, or after, took him to Mr. Griffith's office, where he met Griffith and William Davis, and where they had a conference, and from thence Seastream went to his home.
I omitted to state, in proper order, that it appears by the evidence of the defendants that on the 12th of May, on the occasion of the making of the second affidavit, Seastream was asked if he could prove, as stated in his second affidavit, that he was not absent from his home during the ball game on May 1st. He said he could prove it, and mentioned the name of a Mr. Brown, who lived in his neighborhood and was an engineer on a ferry boat running from New York to College Point. Mr. Haagensen, acting on that information, sent word and wrote to Mr. Brown that he must be ready to be sworn as a witness, and that there was $10, if not more, in it for him. He also interviewed him. He also went to see Seastream at his home in Bayonne about that time, May 19th or 20th.
Some time before June 1st Judge Blair had notified the parties that we would investigate the matter on June 1st at the court house in Jersey City. On the evening before that day Griffith visited Seastream at his home in Bayonne with regard to his going before Judge Blair. What took place between Griffith and Mr. and Mrs. Seastream on that visit is in part disputed, as well as much, if not all, that took place at the previous interview between Seastream and Haagensen and Griffith and Davis, and I therefore purposely avoid stating it at this time. The result, however, was that all parties, except Seastream, appeared before Judge Blair on the morning of June 2d, and he declined to proceed in the absence of Seastream. The matter was then adjourned to the afternoon, when Seastream again failed to appear, and Judge Blair seems to have suspected that the other accused parties were not anxious to have him present.
It so happened that Seastream had a friend and counselor in a Mr. Holman, living in Bayonne, a solicitor of this court having an office in New York, and engaged somewhat in real estate operations. In what appeared to be his distress, Seastream (May 27th or 28th) visited and consulted with Holman, who had heard by the public print of the contradictory affidavits, and who at once advised Seastream to make a full statement of the facts when called upon so to do. On June 2d Holman was called on the 'phone by the assistant prosecutor of the county and asked if he could produce Seastream. An appointment was made for the next day at the courthouse. Seastream and Holman met there, and in the presence of Holman Seastream was examined by Judge Blair, and his evidence taken stenographically by Judge Blair's official stenographer and written out. The next day Mrs. Seastream was in like manner examined by Judge Blair and the two depositions forwarded to me. With the approval of the Chancellor I requested Mr. Frank P. McDermott to act in the matter in behalf of the court and the state. Those depositions I insert in full, and add, by way of explanation, that after they had been handed to Mr. McDermott he handed them to Judge Blair, and later on Seastream and his wife appeared before the judge and signed and reverified them. "In the Matter of the Investigation of the Affidavits Made by August Seastream in the Court of Chancery on the Question of Baseball Playing on Sunday in the City of Bayonne. Before Hon. John A. Blair, Judge, June 3, 1904.
"August Seastream, being duly sworn by the Judge in this matter, testified:
"By the Court:
"Q. You know there are two affidavits in my possession, sent to me by Vice Chancellor Pitney, which were made by you in the baseball playing case, and they are contradictory, and the Vice Chancellor has sent them to me to ascertain how they came to be made? A. The first affidavit was made in my own house, and my wife was there, too, when it was made, and Mr. Currie was there; but Mr. Demarest came there, too, before it was finished, and was there, and another gentleman besides. Q. Do you know who the other gentleman was? A. I can't remember his name, but he was a clerk in an office. Q. Mr. Griswold? A. I think so; an elderly man. He introduced me to all. Q. Was your wife present at the time? A. Yes; all the time. Q. At whose suggestion did you make this affidavit? Who wanted you to make it in the first place. A. Mr. Currie. Q. He cameto you? A. Yes; well, there was both Mr. Currie and Mr. Demarest, but he went to Cosines. Q. Who went over to Cosines? A. Mr. Demarest. Q. Where do you live? A. 525 Avenue B, Bayonne. The affidavit states that my residence immediately joins a certain baseball ground, corner of Forty-Sixth street and Avenue B. This is an error. That is Mr. Smith's property. My residence is on Avenue B, between Forty-Eighth and Forty-Ninth streets, and it adjoins the baseball grounds there on that point. In other respects the affidavit made by me on the 6th of May, 1904, is correct. Q. This affidavit was made by you freely? A. Yes; freely. Q. And without any inducement, except to ask you to tell the truth about it? A. Yes; the men was gentlemen. They never wanted us to do anything except our own wish. Q. Now, as to the second affidavit. What have you to say about that? How did you come to make that second affidavit. A. Capt. Haagensen first came to see me about it Higginson he is called. He said he was sent there by Capt. Carroll. Capt. Carroll is superintendent of the Pennsylvania Ferry. He said if I would not go up and sign this affidavit I would be discharged the next day. Q. Go up where? A. To Davis', meaning Willie Davis. Q. And that if you did not do that that you would be discharged the next day? A. Yes. Q. Then what did you do? A. When the boat came into the slip at five minutes to 10, and he came around there, and he stood there, and said, 'Gus, come over here; I want to see you; come over to the State Street dock.' So the dock comes 24 feet in, so that nobody can come over on the pier there, and facing that is a blacksmith shop, and when he came there he told me not to follow him close up, but I followed him close up, and when he came there he waved his hand away, and then Capt. Carroll came out of the blacksmith shop, and he said, 'I did not want the captain to see this; now he will want to know what I had with you, but you know where you make your bread and butter,' and so he said, 'Now, I have no time; you go on about your business.' So I went on the Annex boat and commenced my work, and I went right on to Brooklyn, and when I came to Brooklyn then he said, 'Now when are you through?' and I said, 'Five minutes to 2,' and he said, 'You know what I told you about to-morrow; meet me on the street in front of the First National Bank.' That is corner of Exchange Place. Q. Haagensen said that to you? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. We left Jersey quarter after 10, and we went to Brooklyn, and we left Brooklyn quarter to 11, but in Brooklyn he left me, and then he came back again and landed in Jersey City a quarter after 11, and I had to go back with her, and I came into Jersey again five after 12, and then I went and left, and I found him standing at Exchange Place, and he says, 'Hold up! let nobody see that you are there.' Q. Who said that? A. Capt. Haagensen. Then he gave another sign, motioning with his hand, and when he gave them that sign I did not look over there, but he gave the sign to somebody, and then he came after me, and he got hold of me between York and Montgomery, on Hudson street, and then, going up there to Davis's office, he said, 'I telephoned up to Davis.' Then he said Willie Davis, 'and he will be there.' Then I told him, I said: 'I won't go. I want to go home and see my wife first.' And he said, 'You come right now with me, or you won't work there to-morrow.' Q. What did they want you to do? A. Then when I came up outside of the house I refused to go in again. Q. What house is that? A. Outside of Davis', opposite the City Hall. Q. The house of the New Jersey Supply Company? A. I think it is the last house on Mercer street, opposite the City Hall. Q. Then what did you do? A. Then I went in there, and then Haagensen said, 'Here is Mr. Seastream, and this is Willie Davis.' Then he said, 'I don't know why you signed that affidavit for.' Mr. Davis said that. Q. Referring to the affidavit of the 6th? A. Yes. Q. The first affidavit? A. Yes. Q. Then what? A. Then he took me in a private room inside and telephoned for Griffith. Then Griffith came up there, and then Griffith said, 'Now I will draw out an affidavit, and if you sign this one the other one is not binding.' Q. That is, the other one is not good? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he draw an affidavit then? A. He done that in a little office, and I was outside. Q. He drew that up after he came up to Mercer street? A. Yes. Q. Go on. A. During that time in the little room, Mr. Davis he was persuading me many times and times again to take some brandy with him, and I declined because I had not been in the habit of taking it before; but I took it, and then he took me out in the room when Griffith said he was all ready. Q. And after you had had the drink of brandy, and went into the other room, and he said it was all ready, you signed this affidavit? A. Yes. Q. This one dated the 12th? A. Yes. Q. Before Peter Bentley. A. Yes. Q. Was Peter Bentley there all the time? A. No; I can't say, because I was in the little room inside. I was not in the office. Q. Were you in there alone? A. Haagensen and me was in that little room. Q. And when you went out into the big room who was there? A. I think Peter Bentley was there, but I won't be certain that he was there. I know so much, he was not there all the time. Q. Was Griffith there? A. Yes, he was there all the time. He was writing it Q. And after it was was written did you swear to it before Peter Bentley? His name is signed here as taking the affidavit? A. Then he was there, but I did not notice that he was there before. Q. But you swore to it before somebody? A. I don't know. Q. Did anybody ask you to hold up your right hand? A. No, sir. Q. Did anybody say do you swear to it? A. No, sir.Q. Did anybody ask you if you swore to it? A. No, sir. Q. It says here, 'Sworn and subscribed before me.' Did you swear to it? A. That I don't know. I am sure I never did. Q. Did you see anybody there except Griffith, Willis Davis, and Bentley? A. And Haagensen. Q. Those were the only four there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you see Mr. Robert Davis there? A. No, sir; he was not there. Q. Go on. A. Then on the 19th Mr. Demarest wanted me in the Court of Chancery, and Mr. Haagensen came down and kept me from going up. He came to my boat. He told me I must not go, because they would arrest me. Then I told him about my work, and he took me onto the saloon deck of the boat, Annex 4, and then into the room where all the trainmen sit, in the brick building, the waiting room for all the employés, and he kept me there from a quarter after 11 to five minutes of 2, and then he took me to New York. There he took me to (I can't say the name) but I think it is the third house from the corner of Desbrosses street. It is a restaurant, on West street. Q. How long did he keep you there? A. I did not look close, but I think it was till about five minutes to 5. Q. Then did you come home again? A. Then he took me, and he was in Griffith's office at half past 5 exact. Q. What did you do there in Griffith's office? A. Then there was Will Davis there, Bentley, Griffith, Haagensen and me. Then Haagensen was going on to say that he overheard that I had put an injunction on the baseball, and he came to me and he told me, 'Have you put an injunction on the baseball?' and he said I should say, 'no, sir,' and he says, 'Well, I can prove it to you, and I will take you to Will Davis, and show you that injunction.' So I said, 'All right.' So I went with him. When we came there Will Davis produced it. Then I came in and I said, 'No.' I was speaking then my part next. I said, 'No; I have not. I understood that Mr. Demarest and Mr. Currie came to me, and so I was for the baseball ground.' Then they telephoned for Griffith. Q. That is your part of the story which was to be told? A. Yes; then Billy Davis said to Mr. Griffith that I had signed in favor of the baseball ground and had not signed in favor of an injunction. Then Griffith drew up the affidavit that I was to make. All that is what we five were to say about that. Now what Bentley was to say I don't remember. I said, 'No; I don't want to go as far as that.' Q. What did you do then? A. I took my hat and went home. Q. Did you hear from anybody after that about this baseball question? A. Then Haagensen was sent to my house to find out whether anybody had been around there, around the house, and he got me to go to the Arlington Hotel or Arlington Park, and he spoke through the 'phone there to Griffith, and he (Griffith) asked Haagensen if either Mr. Currie or Demarest had been over to see me, and he (Haagensen) said 'No; nobody had been there since we parted on the 6th of May.' Q. Had either Mr. Currie or Mr. Demarest seen you since the 6th of May. A. No, sir; I had never seen Mr. Demarest since the 6th of May, and I never seen Mr. Currie until I seen him here on the sidewalk this morning. Q. What did you come here for to-day? A. To tell the truth. Q. When did Haagensen see you before yesterday? A. Yesterday he came to me three times. He told me I had to go to Griffith and see him, and I said: 'No, I never go inside of that place any more. If anybody wants me, they have to go and tell me, and I will go and tell the truth.' And I said I would rather be arrested than to go there and tell a lot of lies. Q. Then what did he say? A. He went away, and afterwards he came back again, and then he said: 'For God's sake, don't leave us that way now. We'll all get in jail if you do leave us.' And he said: 'You will get there, too, and perhaps you will get six years in jail.' I said: 'I don't care. I won't go a foot for you people. I will stand my ground now.' Q. Did he tell you that Judge Blair wanted to see you yesterday? A. No, sir; he said he wanted me to go to Griffith's office. Q. When did you see Griffith? A. I saw him two days ago. He did not speak to me. He spoke to my wife. I heard every word. He wanted her to go to the court and swear. Well, he did not get the chance to tell her what, because my wife told him straight 'No.' He did not have a chance to tell her what. But then he said, 'Won't you say so much as that you were not in when your husband signed this paper, so as to save him going to jail? 'She said: 'No, sir; I would not. I will tell the truth and nothing else.' And he says: 'Couldn't you say that your baby was sick, and that you couldn't hear anything because your baby was sick?' And she said, 'No.' And then he said: 'Couldn't you say that you did not hear anything about it?' And she said: 'No; I won't. I will tell the truth.' And then he said: 'You needn't be scared if you do, because Robert Davis is the boss.' Q. Did he say the boss or the leader? A. He said, 'He is the boss of the party.' Q. And that he would protect you? A. Yes. Q. What did she say to him then? A. She said, 'No, sir; I won't.' She said: 'There is the judge, and he would not do such a thing as that. He wants the truth, and I will go there and tell the truth, and he is a gentleman and will hear me.' Q. What did Griffith say about himself? A. That we will all go to jail. Q. Did he say anything about being disbarred? A. Yes; he said that story, before we had made up the tale we would tell, and he said, 'We must stand together, or we will all go to jail,' and he said, 'It is either me or Currie will be disbarred,' and he wanted my wife to go on the stand and testify and let him out. She says, 'Mr. Currie and Mr. Demarest came here, two gentlemen, and I know it well that they would not misrepresent to me, and I am against that thing, too,'she said. Q. What was done in Davis' office you did for the sake of saving your job? A. Yes, sir; because I was afraid I would lose my position on the ferry. Q. Carroll and Haagensen both told you that you would lose the job? A. No, sir; not Carroll to my face. Haagensen told me that, and told me that Carroll had sent him to tell me that. Q. Did Carroll ever say anything to you about that? A. No. Emil Reuter, the ferry master, he said to me, on the 31st of May, that Carroll wants to see me in the office. Carroll is the superintendent, and so I went with him over there and found Carroll there, and Capt. Carroll said, 'I didn't want August.' That was me. Then Emil said, 'What have you and Haagensen got together?' I said, 'Nothing.' Emil then said, 'That's my business, and I am going to find out.' So I said, 'No, sir; it is not your business.' Then he said, 'I will poke you in the snoot.' So I said, 'I will write to Philadelphia.' Then Carroll came up and took him (Emil) by the arm and took him away. That was at the Cortlandt Street ferry slip, right near the depot. Q. If you had known that I (Judge Blair) wanted to see you yesterday in my office, would you have come? A. Yes, sir; I would have come. Q. But you did not come because Haagensen told you that you were needed over at Griffith's office. A. Yes, I told Mr. Haagensen that time, as plainly as could be, I would go there and tell the whole truth, 'but, gentlemen, I won't go there to tell a pack of lies.' And I said, 'But I won't go to Griffith's office anyhow.' Q. When you told Haagensen you would come to my office and tell the whole truth, then he would not let you go? A. Yes; and then he went away. The last time he sent to me this. It is dated Wednesday, the 2d; but it was Wednesday the 1st. He sent me this slip, and it was given to me in the morning. (Witness shows paper.) Q. Go on. A. And then when I would not go to Griffith's office, he wanted me to go where he lived, and when I would not go there, then he did not want me, and I went home. The letter was for going to Griffith's office, so that I should not forget where it was.
"August Seastream.
"Sworn and subscribed before me this 14th day of June, A. D. 1904.
"John A. Blair,
"Judge of the Hudson County Court of Quarter Sessions, N. J."
Mrs. Seastream's Affidavit
Questioned by Judge Blair:
"Mrs. Seastream, being sworn in my presence, made the following statements: Q. You are the wife of August Seastream, who made these two affidavits in question, one dated May 6th, and the other the 12th of May? A. I know about the 6th of May. Q. You live on Avenue B, Bayonne, between Forty-Eighth and Forty-Ninth streets, and four property adjoins the baseball grounds? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you present when your husband made the affidavit dated May 6th in your home in Bayonne? A. Yes sir; Mr. Currie was present, Mr. Demarest, and a gentleman I think was Mr. Griswold came in as well, and I heard the affidavit read before my husband signed it, and I saw him sign it. I was present at the time, and what is in the affidavits is true. Q. After the 6th of May, did you see anybody connected with this transaction—Mr. Griffith, for instance? A. I think it was on the 13th or 14th of May, I saw him. He was at the house. I did not know the gentleman at that time. He rang the bell, and my husband went to the door, and then Mr. Griffith came in, and then he said to my husband, 'Now we have come to an agreement to keep this out of court, and whoever gets the most votes will be the winners. I have Mr. Alexander, Dr. Ware, and a few others' signatures,' and he laid the paper on the table, and he told him to sign it. He said, 'If you will sign your name,' and while he was talking the door bell rang again, and it was Mr. Salter. Mr. Griffith went to the door with my husband when Mr. Salter rang the bell, and then he said to Mr. Griffith, 'Are you ready?' and then they both went out. Then I asked my husband who the gentleman was, and he said it was Mr. Griffith, Mr. Davis' lawyer, and I said he acted rather strange. Then I did not see him again until June 1st, when he called again, and I asked him in, and he asked me a few questions about the baby and like that, and then he said, 'Now, Mrs. Seastream, I want you to go to court and say you did not see Mr. Currie sign the paper, and I want you to say in court that you were not paying any attention to us; that you were attending to the baby.' But I said: 'If I have to go to court I will speak the truth. I have always spoken the truth. I was brought up to, and I will speak the truth now.' He said: 'You could say you were paying attention to the baby. You could have been walking in and out of the room and not remember.' I said: 'I could have been; but I was paying attention, as I myself had a little to say.' Then he said: 'Well, will you say that you won't talk about it?' I said: 'No, sir; I shall speak the truth, and if questions are asked me I shall answer them straightforward.' 'Well,' he said, 'For God's sake, don't go and take the other party's part, if you don't take ours.' Then he asked if Mr. Demarest had been here since May 6th, or any one else, posting me. I said: 'No, sir; no one has to post me to tell the truth, and I haven't seen any one since.' 'Well,' he said, 'you would not need to answer any questions if you want only to speak the truth.' He then said: 'Mr. Robert Davis is a ruler. You don't need to be scared.' 'Well,' I said, 'I cannot help it. I will speak the truth.' 'If Mr. Demarest could hear you now,' he said, 'he would be here as quick as lightning.' I said, 'I do not suppose you will go and tell him what I amsaying.' And he said, 'Not on your life, I won't.' 'Well, Mrs. Seastream,' he said, 'it wouldn't be telling any untruths if you would say that you did not wish to talk about it and it will save us all from going to jail,' he said. 'I cannot help it,' I said. 'If questions are asked me I shall answer them, and answer them truthfully.' Then he asked me 'if I would go away for a few days and he would pay all expenses.' I told him, 'No;' that I had no place to go and that it was not convenient at that time for me to go away, also, that I had no cause to go away anyway;' and I said, 'Mr. Griffith.' I said, 'my husband and 1 have worked very hard to have our little home, and now you have come and asked my husband and me to swear to a lot of untruths. You have come and made me miserable, and the last few days I do not know what to do.' And he said: 'Well, Mrs. Seastream, I am very sorry. I will try and not have you appear in court,' he said. Q. Was there anything further said, Mrs. Seastream? A. No, sir: I don't remember, because he found that I would speak the truth; that was the last. Q. And you have seen nothing of them since. A. Capt. Haagensen called once, I think it was on about the 20th—the next week. He asked my husband if he had seen Mr. Demarest or any of his party, and he said, 'For God's sake, don't go and talk, Mr. Seastream, or we will all be sent to jail,' and my husband did not answer him. Q. And he then went away. A. Yes, sir. Q. That is all you know about it, Mrs. Seastreaml! A. Yes, sir.
Laura Seastream.
"Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of June, A. D. 1904.
"John A. Blair,
"Judge of the Hudson County Court of Quarter Sessions."
Upon the several affidavits already mentioned and an additional affidavit by Mr. Griswold and one by Mr. Demarest an order to show cause was advised by me and signed by the Chancellor, calling upon the parties to show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt of this court in the premises. All the parties appeared before me, both in person and by counsel. On the return day of that order counsel for the court and state produced in court all the affiants, who made the several affidavits upon which the order was based, and tendered them to the accused for cross-examination. Seastream was first cross-examined at great length, and afterwards evidence was adduced by the accused, all heard orally and occupying parts of two days and the whole of a third in its production.
Counsel for the accused took one or more preliminary objections. The principal one was stated in different forms and on more than one occasion, but amounted, I think, to this: That the Chancellor had not in fact referred to me, and under the Constitution of the state of New Jersey had no power to refer to me, and thereby confer on me jurisdiction to hear a matter of this kind. He argued that the contempt charged did not consist in any misbehavior in the presence of the court, or in the disobedience of any order which had been made in a cause referred to me, or which had been advised by me in the regular course of the practice of the court, as in the Paterson Strike Case (Frank v. Herold) 51 Atl. 774, 52 Atl. 152. Nor had the offense been committed in connection with a cause which had been referred to me, as In White v. White, 61 Atl. ——. After conference with the Chancellor I overruled the objections.
The Paterson Strike Case arose on a charge of a breach of an order of restraint signed by the Chancellor upon my advice, upon ex parte application to me, and a further breach of a further order in the same matter made on the return day of the first order, on a regular motion day at chambers' when I sat for the Chancellor. The order advised by me and signed by the Chancellor, adjudging the parties guilty of contempt, was tested in every possible way in the Court of Errors and Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States and was sustained. In White v. White the charge was quite similar to the one made here, and was heard by me very much as, so far, has been the present matter, and the Chancellor acted on my advice in adjudging the parties guilty and imposing a penalty upon them for their contempt.
Another preliminary point taken by counsel was that the affidavits taken by Judge Blair were not taken in this court, nor by the judge as an officer of this court. There can be no doubt that Judge Blair is one of the persons who has authority to take affidavits to be used in this court. Moreover, all parties, including Haagensen and William J. Davis, acquiesced in the investigation by Judge Blair; Davis and Haagensen attending with Griffith before him for that purpose. It is true that they were not then directly accused of any improper conduct, but I do not see how that circumstance varies the case. In answer to the argument based on acquiescence in the proceedings before Judge Blair they reply that they expected and had a right to be present when Seastream and his wife were examined, in order to cross-examine; and this point, possibly, would be well taken if those affiants had not been produced before me for cross-examination. But they were so produced, and the defendants exercised their rights of cross-examination of Seastream without restriction, but did not choose to cross-examine Mrs. Seastream. For my own satisfaction I called her myself and examined her in the presence of the accused, and their counsel cross-examined her. Withthese preliminaries I propose to examine the merits of the affair.
In the first place, it clearly appears by the evidence, and might well have been classed with the matters admitted or so thoroughly established as not to be capable of dispute, that the first affidavit was made by Seastream freely and voluntarily and without the least suggestion, persuasion, or pressure upon him. He was waited upon at his home in the evening by Messrs. Demarest and Currie. So far as it appears neither had any previous acquaintance with him. They found him seated with his wife and infant children, and all danger of misapprehension of either question or answer was removed by the presence of his wife, who appeared to be a rather bright and somewhat intelligent Englishwoman. They asked him if he had any objections to Sunday baseball playing. He stated that he did have objections, and with the aid of his wife proceeded to state them without question or suggestion by his visitors. At this stage of the affair Mr. Demarest left to see another party in the neighborhood, and Mr. Currie remained to write out Mr. Seastream's affidavit. In so doing he did not attempt to use Mr. Seastream's imperfect language, but took pains and I am entirely satisfied succeeded in truly embodying the ideas he expressed and the reasons he gave for being opposed to Sunday baseball games. One or two slight errors of fact seem to have crept into the affidavit. One was as to the length of time that Seastream and his wife were at home during the progress of the two games which were played on April 24th and May 1st, respectively. It is charged that those persons were in their dwelling on the occasions mentioned for a greater proportion of the time occupied by the games than the affidavit indicated, and it was on that part of the affidavit that the evidence of the witness Brown was deemed so important. The other error of fact was as to the precise location of the lot actually owned by Seastream bordering on or near the baseball grounds. I have not taken the trouble to determine precisely what this mistake was. It abundantly appeared that it did practically adjoin the grounds, and the error is slight and trifling. When the writing of the deposition was nearly finished, Mr. Demarest and his clerk, Griswold, entered the house, and in their presence the affidavit was read to Seastream and his wife, and he pronounced it correct and signed it, and swore to it before Mr. Currie. At or about the same time Mr. Demarest asked him if he was willing to have a suit to restrain the Sunday playing carried on in his name, and he replied that he was willing, but expressed a wonder whether his so doing would have the effect of his losing his job on the ferryboat. He seemed to understand that some of the visitors to the ball games came from Brooklyn by the boats on which he worked. My conclusion is that, so far as the contents of the first affidavit affected the merits of the cause in which it was to be used, it was perfectly honest and sincere, and truly expressed the views and feelings of Mr. Seastream, and that not the least improper means were used to procure it. It further appears that neither Mr. Demarest nor his partner, Mr. Roberson, nor Mr. Currie, nor any other person interested on the side of the complainants in this cause, ever approached Seastream or had any communication with him or his wife, either directly or indirectly, from the time of the taking of the first affidavit up to the time of the hearing in this matter, and he appeared here by an independent counsel, Mr. James Benny.
Coming now to the second affidavit, Seastream and Haagensen do not disagree as to the cause of their first interview on the morning of the 12th, the date of that affidavit. It is admitted that Seastream was pointed out to Haagensen by one Madden, a ticket taker of the Annex ferry as the man who had stopped the baseball game, and that Haagensen first accosted Seastream. No reason is given by Haagensen in his evidence for accosting Seastream. He had not been asked to do so by either Seastream or any one on his behalf. The two proceeded to have a private interview on the dock at some distance from the ferry entrance. Seastream swears that this was at the suggestion of Haagensen. The latter swears that it was at the suggestion of Seastream. Haagensen swears that he found Seastream in trouble by reason of being twitted and found fault with by his fellow workmen on account of his having stopped the Sunday baseball games, and asked Haagensen's aid to get him out of the scrape. Haagensen undertook this out of pure friendship for a man known to him to be a stupid, helpless foreigner of feeble intellect and little intelligence, unable to take care of himself, and evidently easily persuaded. Seastream swears that Haagensen told him that, unless he did something to counteract what he had done already, he would lose his job on the boat, and that he was greatly distressed by that threat. Haagensen denies this. That Seastream was in a state of mental distress at and after the beginning of his interview with Haagensen is an established fact in the case, and I find nothing in the case to cause this distress except the fear of losing his job. The interview on the docks produced no results. Seastream returned to the boat, and Haagensen also took the same boat. The latter says that his object in so doing was to adjust its compasses. Seastream says that Haagensen again accosted him on the boat and finally induced him to meet him at a restaurant at No. 1 Exchange Place, Jersey City, at the end of his work for the day. At the restaurant Haagensen communicated by 'phone with the office of Mr. Robert Davis and found that his son, Mr. William J. Davis, was there.Haagensen and Seastream proceeded together to Davis' office, and, as Haagensen swears, he himself stated to Davis the great trouble in which Seastream found himself, to wit, that he had signed some paper against the Sunday ball games, whereas he thought he was signing a petition in favor of it. Haagensen swears that this is what Seastream had stated to him at the previous interview. Seastream denies this last. Haagensen swears that the avowed object of the visit was to relieve Seastream of his trouble. Davis then 'phoned for Griffith, who promptly appeared and proceeded to write a deposition for Mr. Seastream to sign. This affidavit was written in Mr. Davis' outer office, while Haagensen, Seastream, and Davis were in the inner office refreshing themselves with brandy, which Mr. Davis apparently kept in his office. Mr. Peter Bentley was called on the 'phone to take the affidavit, which he did. Mr. Griffith swears, and is therein supported by Haagensen and Davis, that the affidavit, as it was being written, was read, paragraph by paragraph, to Mr. Seastream and assented to by him, notwithstanding, as pointed out by Mr. Seastream's counsel, some parts of it were absurdly inaccurate, and after Mr. Bentley had arrived, he, before administering the oath, cross-examined, to use the language of Mr. Griffith, Seastream upon it, and found him entirely satisfied therewith. Further, some one asked Seastream if he could sustain by proof the contents of the second affidavit in the matter of the length of time he had witnessed the two ball games, and he then mentioned the name of his neighbor, Mr. Brown, which circumstance led to the opening of communication between Haagensen and Brown, and Haagensen's offer, before stated, of $10 to Brown to testify.
One or two other matters seem worth mentioning here. Haagensen swears that at the very first interview with Seastream the latter told him, "Now everybody is gibing me and making fun of me for stopping them playing baseball on Sunday. Now," he says "I had nothing to do with them stopping baseball on Sunday. I signed a petition to continue to play baseball on Sunday, because I like baseball." He further swears, as we have seen, that when he reached Davis' office he (Haagensen) repeated what Seastream had told him. That he did the talking at the interview with Davis is repeated by him several times in his evidence. It does not appear that the word "affidavit" was used in any conversation between Haagensen and Seastream before their arrival at Davis' office, or that Seastream was, according to the theory of Haagensen and Davis, conscious of having taken an affidavit, and yet, in giving his account, on direct examination, of the interview at Davis' office, Haagensen swears: "After telling Mr. Davis the conversation I had with Seastream, Davis says, 'There is such an affidavit in the Chancery Court.'" Griffith swears that on his arrival he was introduced to Haagensen and Seastream by Davis, and that he (Griffith) produced the copy of the first affidavit, and that he addressed himself to Seastream as follows: "I asked Seastream what I could do for him, and he said that he would like to see the affidavit they said he had executed, and I showed him this (indicating). * * * And his remark was that he had never signed anything that looked like that; and I said 'Suppose I read it to you and perhaps you can recall some of the affidavit.'" After reading it to him, "I asked him if that had ever been read to him before, and he said it had not; that the paper Mr. Currie showed him [was] represented to him to have been a petition in favor of Sunday baseball." He then states that he proceeded to draw the second affidavit from memoranda given him by Mr. Seastream. After that detail was given he was questioned as follows: "Q. (by the Court). I will ask you this question: What was the occasion for making any affidavit at all? A. Weil—Q. (by the Court). Who suggested making any affidavit? A. Seastream asked if he could make a statement, and he said he wanted to be set right, and I said that no paper was of any value in the case unless it was in the form of an affidavit, and if that was his wish I would take the affidavit. Q. (by the Court). Now, Mr. Griffith, did you stop to consider the effect of asking a man, or letting him, even if he asked, to make a contradictory affidavit of that kind, what kind of a pickle it placed this poor devil in—I use the expression, because that described it—did you think of that? A. I did, sir. Q. (by the Court). If you had been his counsel and disinterested, and not counsel or solicitor, not president, of the defendant company, solicitor of that company, would you have advised him to make another affidavit? A. Well, I wasn't representing him in this matter."
I stop here to repeat what I remarked during the hearing of this matter, that I think it was highly improper, from a professional point of view, for counsel situate as was Mr. Griffith, an officer in the defendant corporation, and at that moment acting as its counsel and solicitor in defending the bill in this very cause, to take advantage of a person situate as, on Mr. Griffith's own view, was Seastream on May 12th, to procure from him his second affidavit for use for his client in the pending suit. His plain duty, as a counselor of the Supreme Court, was to advise him to seek and consult with other counsel, and not to encourage him to make an affidavit which immediately subjected him to the great danger, if not certainty, of being convicted of the crime of perjury. I hope and believe that there can be but one opinion on this subject among high-minded lawyers.
Haagensen further swears, and in this he is supported by his quartermaster or wheelman, Nelson, that about two days laterSeastream came up to his pilot house on his own ferryboat and thanked him for having gotten him out of his scrape. Seastream denies this in toto, saying that no such interview occurred. About a week later (May 19th or 20th) Haagensen, induced, as he says, by some article (not produced) which he saw in the newspapers stating that Seastream had made his second affidavit under improper pressure, made a trip and saw Seastream at his house late in the afternoon. Haagensen says that he asked Seastream about it, and Seastream denied having given any authority for such a statement, and that he (Haagensen) was angry, and charged Seastream with having lied to him and Griffith, and threatened him with personal violence if he found out that he had done so, and that Seastream declared that he could prove by Mr. Brown the truth of the second affidavit. Seastream swears that the object of this visit was to find out whether or not Mr. Demarest or Mr. Currie or any one in behalf of the complainants had been to see him. Plainly the object was to stiffen Seastream and prevent him from receding from his second affidavit. On this occasion, undoubtedly, Haagensen, through Seastream, made his first offer of $10 to Brown to testify, which was afterwards repeated both in writing and orally.
With regard to the incident of the promise of $10 or more by Haagensen to Brown to testify in support of Seastream's second affidavit, Mr. Haagensen's statement is that such payment was only intended to cover Mr. Brown's loss of time and his trouble, and Mr. Brown swears that he so understood it. I asked Mr. Haagensen with whose money he expected to pay it. He said his own. I asked him why he was sufficiently interested in the affair to pay money out of his own pocket, and he replied that he was willing to pay money out of his own pocket from a pure desire to establish the truth. He disavowed any motive of promoting the interests of the ferry company by increasing its receipts from persons wishing to witness the baseball games played on Sundays between famous clubs advertised to be played on the very grounds in question. It abundantly appeared from the evidence that the most convenient route for parties living in the great residential city of Brooklyn to reach the grounds in question was by way of the Brooklyn Annex and the trolley from thence to Bayonne.
Now, with regard to the occurrences of May 26th we have seen that the solicitors of the complainant first became aware of the second affidavit and its contents on the afternoon of May 23d; that they promptly procured the affidavits of Messrs. Currie and Griswold (Mr. Demarest, from motives of proper delicacy, being silent), and held them ready for use on the continuation of the hearing on the 20th; that they also issued a subpoena and took what they had reason to believe were sufficient measures for its service in order to procure the attendance of Seastream before me on that day; that the fact that they had issued such subpoena was announced shortly after the court opened at 10 o'clock in the morning. Then between 10 and 11 o'clock we have Mr. Haagensen seeking an interview with Mr. Seastream in pursuance of a note from his quartermaster saying that Seastream wished to see him: "May 26. Capt. Haagensen: Seastream wants to see you right away. He says that he is in trouble. A man has been looking for him on the boats. Respt., Edw. Nelson." He says that he found Seastream in fear of being arrested. I shall deal with this excuse later. He took Seastream away from his work, which of itself protected him from arrest a great portion of the time and placed him in a waiting room for the trainmen in the great brick building adjoining the large train shed of the railroad, a place where, in the ordinary course of his employment he would not be likely to be found, he having nothing to do with the running of the trains, and left him there until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. He then took him to New York, gave him his dinner, and kept him there until after 4 o'clock, and then brought him back to New Jersey, where he could be conveniently met by the officer with the warrant for arrest, if any. Haagensen swears that he took no pains to ascertain whether any process of arrest had been actually issued against Seastream, or the nature thereof, though he saw in the ferry house a man whom he had seen previously in the court room. He took Seastream to the office of Mr. Griffith, and there met Mr. William J. Davis. In the meantime and during the morning session of the day Seastream's second affidavit had been disclosed to the court, and the matter had been referred to Judge Blair, with the promise of the hearty co-operation of all parties in its investigation by him. Seastream seems to have no recollection of any fear of being arrested, though he was not thoroughly examined on this subject. I stop here to say that I am entirely satisfied that the object of Mr. Haagensen's conduct on that day was to prevent Seastream from being served with subpoena to appear in my court. He had no solid reason to believe that Seastream either feared being arrested or that he was in danger of being arrested.
Returning, now, to the interview about 5 p. m. at Griffith's office, when Haagensen, Seastream, Griffith, and Davis were present. Mr. Bentley arrived at the latter part of this interview. Seastream swears that the other parties, Haagensen and Griffith, "schooled" him as to what he was to say when he got before Judge Blair, and wanted him to swear to what was not true. This is denied by those gentlemen, but they all admit that Seastream then and there recited what he expected to swear to when he came before Judge Blair. Mr. Griffith's evidence on thatsubject is as follows: "Seastream was very much agitated at the time, and the very first remark he made was that they were trying to arrest him, and I asked him who, and he responded, 'The Chancery Court,' and I told him he need have no fear if what he told me in the second affidavit was true, and that I did not believe it was possible or probable that a warrant had issued for his arrest, inasmuch as the Vice Chancellor had referred it to Judge Blair for investigation; and I then asked him to repeat to me what explanation he would have to make to Judge Blair, which he did." Seastream, in his deposition before Judge Blair, mistakenly fixes the occurrences of the 26th of May as having happened on the 19th, when he says "Mr. Demarest wanted me in the Court of Chancery," and he further attempts to repeat what occurred in Griffith's office in the way of agreeing on the several stories which each should repeat when called before Judge Blair. Further on in his deposition he was asked the question: "Did he [Griffith] say anything about being disbarred?" It appears by Judge Blair's evidence given before me that that question was put by Mr. Holman. And Seastream replied that Griffith said: "We must all stand together, or we will all go to jail. It is either me or Currie will be disbarred." This is quite intelligible when we recollect that Griffith witnessed the indignation manifested by me that morning when the second affidavit was read in court, and I expressed the determination to have the matter investigated and referred it to Judge Blair for that purpose. Mr. Holman's question was undoubtedly the result of the complete revelation of the whole matter which he swears Seastream made to him a day or two after the 26th of May.
Another incident in the history of events should be noted just here. Up to May 20th or 21st Seastream seems to have felt quite contented with what he had done, because not only do Haagensen and Nelson swear, against Seastream's positive denial, that Seastream did, on or about May 14th thank Haagensen for getting him out of a scrape, but it is quite clear that nearly a week later he willingly signed a paper with Mr. Alexander, the other complainant, asking the solicitors to discontinue the injunction suit. No pressure was brought to bear on him in this instance, and he seems to have been in a contented frame of mind. On the day that he made the second affidavit he informed his wife that he had signed, at Mr. Davis' office, a paper the contents of which he did not know. Mrs. Seastream was anxious to know what those contents were, and at her suggestion, she swears, Seastream went to see Mr. Davis to ascertain what they were. He does not give the result of that interview, but Mr. Robert Davis swears that two days after the making of the second affidavit Seastream called on him and said that he wanted him (Davis) to send somebody to protect him. "Q. From What? A. From the annoyance he was getting from the other side" (meaning the complainants). Mr. Davis told him that he had nothing to do with it, and that he had better go to his counsel and attend to it. He further explained that he meant Seastream's counsel. No name was mentioned. I think Mr. Davis is mistaken, either in the date of the interview, or in what he understood Seastream intended to say about annoyances from the other side. Up to May 14th there was not the least reason to believe that anybody on the part of the complainants had heard of the second affidavit, and there is nothing in the case to indicate that anybody on the part of the complainants had approached Seastream; but the contrary abundantly appears. Be that as it may, the advice of Mr. Davis was eminently proper and creditable to him, and was precisely the advice which should have been given to him by Mr. Haagensen and Mr. Griffith. After he received that advice, and having passed through the experiences of May 19th (or 20th) and May 26th, he seems to have had sense enough to follow it, and called upon Mr. Holman, who was his near neighbor, and who sold him his lot and had lent him the money with which he had built his house, and related his experiences to him.
Here it is proper to say that on the very day of the making of the second affidavit he told his wife that he made it because he was threatened with the loss of his job. Mr. Holman swears that he told him the same thing. He also told Mr. Holman about his experiences of May 20th, and of his being "schooled" by Haagensen, Griffith, and William J. Davis as to what he was going to swear to when he came before Judge Blair. Mr. Holman advised him to go before Judge Blair and tell the whole truth, and, I infer, the result of his advice was that in the meantime he should have nothing to do with either side. Then followed the fixing by Judge Blair of Thursday, June 2d, at the courthouse, as the time and place of making the investigation, and the request to counsel to have present all parties implicated. Judge Hudspeth, counsel in the main cause for the defendant, and whom I take pleasure in acquitting of any part in the procuration of the second affidavit, or of any improper attempt to support its truth by evidence, or to suppress the elicitation of the truth, swears that he was requested by Judge Blair to procure the attendance of Seastream before him on the morning of the 2d at the courthouse; that he 'phoned to Griffith to procure Seastream's attendance, but that he enjoined upon him to say not one word to Seastream about what he was to swear to. Griffith at once took measures to interview Seastream, and also wrote Haagensen to look after him, and we have Haagensen writing this note on Wednesday, June 1st: "Wednesday P. M. Dear Seastream: If you don't see Griffith this p. m., be at his office at 9 a. m. tomorrow. He is down to your house this p. m., but I understand you are working. Pay noattention to anybody. Yours, Cap." Griffith swears that he went to Seastream's house that evening to procure his attendance the next day at the courthouse, and to that end asked Seastream to come at 10 o'clock in the morning to his office near the ferry, more than a mile from the courthouse, instead of going directly to the courthouse. Asked by me why he wished Seastream to come to his office, instead of going directly to the courthouse, he replied that he was not sure that Seastream knew the way to the courthouse, and thought he would be more sure to get there if he came by the way of his office.
Griffith swears that he called at Seastream's house and saw him and his wife, and told them that Judge Blair wanted both of them to appear at his court in the morning, and that he (Griffith) wished Seastream to come to his office at 10 o'clock, but that his wife refused, and that Seastream appealed to her, and said, "My God, Laura, you would not see me go to jail?" Griffith swears that he was getting pretty angry at the time—why, I am unable to see from his evidence—and that he said to Mrs. Seastream that, if what her husband had told him and Davis in the second affidavit was not true, then there was no alternative for Seastream but jail, and that he (Griffith) would help send him there, and that he then left Seastream and his wife both deny being asked to go to Judge Blair's court the next morning. Mrs. Seastream's deposition before Judge Blair, above set forth, was fully reiterated by her on her examination before me, and she was subjected, without being shaken in the least, to a severe cross-examination by the counsel of the accused. In both cases she swore that Griffith wished her to go to court (without mentioning what court) and to falsify as to what occurred when the first affidavit was taken. This is corroborated by Seastream. Griffith, in substance, admits having threatened Seastream; but the exact form of the threat is proven by another witness called by the accused. This witness was a Mr. Elliott, who had been a contractor carrying on the work of grading and preparing the baseball grounds, and he swears that he went with Griffith to Seastream's house on the evening in question, and that he remained outside reading on the piazza while Griffith was in the house; that the door was partly open, and he heard an animated and angry conversation going on inside, but that he could not distinguish what was said; that it ended by Seastream and Griffith coming to the door, when he heard Griffith say something about Seastream going before the court, and he thinks Judge Blair's court was either specifically mentioned or indicated, and that the last words that were spoken were by Griffith, and were to the effect that if Seastream backed out of the second affidavit he (Griffith) would have him locked up and punished. His exact language is as follows: "Mr. Seastream said to Mrs. Seastream, 'Won't you go?' and she said, 'No.' He says, 'For God's sake! * * * If you don't go, I will go to jail.' And Mr. Griffith then said, 'Yes; and, if he backs out of what he swore to in his affidavit, I will see that he goes to jail.'" It is admitted that Haagensen urged Seastream to go with him the next morning, June 2d, to Griffith's office, but Seastream refused.
With regard to the contradictions in the evidence, the serious ones are as follows:
1. Did Haagensen threaten Seastream with the loss of his job if he refused to do something to counteract what he had already done? It matters not whether Haagensen had or had not the power to execute his threat. Counsel contended that he had not such power. It is enough, however, if Seastream supposed Haagensen had that power, and if it be true, as Seastream swears, that Haagensen said he was sent by Capt. Carroll the superintendent of the ferry.
2. Was Seastream fully informed, so that he understood the force and effect of the second affidavit? In this instance he is brought into conflict, not only with the evidence of Haagensen, Griffith, and William J. Davis, but also with that of Mr. Peter Bentley. Seastream denies that he was acquainted with the contents or that he was sworn, and he asserted that ignorance to his wife the same day, and, later on, to Mr. Holman. In favor of the affirmative, and against Seastream's denial, is the fact that it was learned from him at Davis' office that Brown was at his house when the Sunday games were played. Yet it is possible, in my judgment, upon a calm review of the whole case, and taking into consideration the general stupidity and weakness of the witness and his lack of familiarity with the English language, that he may not have been aware of the contents of the affidavit or that he was sworn to it. Much depends upon the mode in which the ceremony of administering the oath is performed. I place great confidence in Mr. Bentley's evidence; but, after all, I am not satisfied that Seastream consciously falsified in his denials with regard to that affidavit. I may as well say here that the maxim relied upon by the counsel for the accused of "False in one, false in all," must be applied here with caution. I think it does not follow that, if it be admitted that Seastream lied on the stand when he denied knowledge of the contents of the second affidavit, and also denied having been sworn, or of even having seen Mr. Bentley on that occasion, the affirmative evidence given by him of the occurrences and conversation is unreliable. In other words, he may be morally capable of denying, under oath, the truth, while at the same time he is intellectually incapable of manufacturing a story out of the solid. I am unable to believe that he manufactured the story which he told, in part or in whole, first to his wife and then to Mr. Holman, and then detailed to Judge Blair and then in court to me. Hisexamination before Judge Blair was had under circumstances favorable to the elicitation of the truth. He had been subjected to no influence from anybody on the part of the complainants, but had been wholly under the influence, first, of the accused herein, and then of his wife and Mr. Holman. The impression which Mr. Holman made upon me was decidedly favorable. He seemed to be a sensible, intelligent, and high-minded lawyer.
3. What occurred at the Seastream house on the evening of June 1st? Is Mrs. Seastream's account of Mr. Griffith's conduct and statements reliable? I will not go over it, except to remark that something which she or her husband said or did made Mr. Griffith very angry. Mrs. Seastream swears it was because Mrs. Seastream refused to go to court and swear as he wished her to do—falsely, as she says. He gives no reason for being angry, and I find none, except her refusal to comply with his wishes. That refusal to a man in Mr. Griffith's position was indeed exasperating. Mrs. Seastream's manner and appearance on the stand and her mode of giving her evidence impressed me most favorably, and the effect of it upon my mind was that she was speaking the truth—an effect which has been strengthened by a careful reading, many times over, of all the evidence.
The result, then, may be stated in this wise: If it be necessary or important for the determination of this cause to settle the question, "Whether or not the threat of losing his job was made by Haagensen to Seastream?" I shall hold the affirmative. That is the result of a careful consideration of all the evidence. I can find in the case no other sufficient cause for the great agitation under which Seastream, by the evidence of the accused, is shown to have labored. With regard to the second disputed question, I am in doubt, for reasons already stated, but think it not necessary to determine, except so far as to acquit fully Mr. Bentley of all improper conduct. He may very well have thought that Mr. Seastream understood thoroughly everything that was said and done, when, for reasons many times heretofore stated, he did not. With regard to the third question, as I have already stated, I conclude that the evidence of Mrs. Seastream is reliable.
My conclusion upon the whole matter la this: Haagensen accosted Seastream, and either found him in a state of distress, or by threats of discharging him (I believe the latter) threw him into a state of distress, by reason of his action in this cause. Under pretense of helping him out of his trouble, he took him to the office of the principal proprietor of the defendant corporation, and there he was induced by the advice of persons who, he thought, were acting in his personal interests, rather than that of the defendant herein, aided by the use of alcoholic stimulants, to make the second affidavit, which was essentially untrue in most of its material parts. In all this each one of those parties, Haagensen, Griffith, and Davis, were acting entirely in the interests of the defendant corporation, while they led Seastream to suppose that they were doing him a favor. The evidence leaves my mind in doubt whether Seastream comprehended the full force and effect of that second affidavit. About a week later Haagensen visited Seastream for the purpose of ascertaining whether parties interested for the complainants had approached him, and also for the purpose of strengthening him in favor of the defendants' side and in support of his second affidavit. In that interview Haagensen browbeat and threatened Seastream with personal violence if he did not stand by that affidavit. He also made promises to pay a witness extra compensation for attending and testifying in support of the second affidavit. On the morning of May 26th, when it had become known that process of subpoena had been issued for Seastream to appear in this court, Haagensen sought him and concealed him from the server during the whole day, for the purpose of preventing him from being served therewith, and at the end of the court day brought him to Griffith's office, where he met Griffith and William J. Davis, and in the presence of the three Seastream was coached by the three for his coming examination before Judge Blair, which had that day been provided for. Then on the evening of June 1st Griffith visited Seastream for the purpose of procuring his attendance at his office on the next morning, in advance of his examination by Judge Blair, with a view of keeping him within his own influence. He also attempted to influence Mrs. Seastream so to falsify, if she was called as a witness, as not to contradict her husband. When he saw that he had failed in this attempt he became exasperated, and distinctly threatened Seastream with prosecution if he failed in his approaching examination to stand by his second affidavit. All this I consider as plainly amounting, on the part of Haagensen and Griffith, to an attempt to influence improperly the due administration of justice in this court.
The only doubt I have is as to how far William J. Davis should be held to have participated therein. He undoubtedly participated actively and intelligently in the procuration of the second affidavit. He sent for Griffith. He talked with Seastream. He treated him with brandy, and did all in his power to obtain the desired result. He knew that Seastream thought that what he (Davis) was doing was being done in his (Seastream's) interest, without any interest on Davis' part, and he knew that he (Davis) was then taking advantage of Seastream's condition of distress to use him for the advancement of the interests of the defendantcorporation, in which his father was financially interested. He was also present at the coaching on May 26th. If he had been a solicitor or counselor of this court, there could be no doubt of his responsibility. The doubt arises from the consideration that he may not have had the same appreciation of the impropriety of such conduct as had his counsel, Griffith. In short, he may have been ignorant of the law governing such matters. The question is, ought such ignorance to excuse him entirely? After mature consideration I have arrived at the conclusion that he cannot be excused, and must be adjudged guilty, but in a lesser degree than Haagensen and Griffith.
There remains to be dealt with only Seastream. We have seen that he was unintelligent, and unfamiliar with our language, and easily persuaded, and I think inexperienced in ordinary matters. He was subjected to severe and continued pressure, which greatly agitated him. I think, as I have stated, that it is quite doubtful if he understood the full purport of what he did on May 12th at Davis' office, and I think it still more doubtful if he had a full consciousness of the objectionable character of the transaction. I assume that he knew that he had made an affidavit adverse to Sunday baseball playing before Mr. Currie and in the presence of his wife; but, notwithstanding the positive evidence of Haagensen, I am by no means satisfied that he originated or consciously adopted the scheme of pretending that he thought he was signing a petition for Sunday baseball playing, or that he originated any of the other contradictory statements in his affidavit of May 12th. But I am satisfied that, for the purpose of counteracting what he had previously done, he consciously signed a paper which he knew was directly contradictory of the truthful affidavit previously made by him, and which he expected would be used for that purpose in court. Further, I think that he felt at that time that such conduct on his part was wrong. For these reasons I am unable to avoid finding him guilty, though the circumstances, which I have already many times repeated, tend strongly to ameliorate the offense, and must have weight in fixing the punishment.