they recommended that the sentence, therefore, be a fine and not imprisonment. District- Attorney Quinby offered to prove on a hearing for a new trial that the Standard's representatives used money in getting these affidavits. The result was that the two Everests were each fined $250. This sentence was made light, the judge explained, because of the civil suits brought to recover damages for the very same acts—a person could not be punished twice for the same offence.
The first civil suit referred to above resulted in an award by the jury of $20,000 to Matthews. The second civil suit was for $250,000, but before it was tried Matthews's business had become so involved by all this trouble that in January, 1888, it was put into the hands of a receiver. The defendants finally offered to settle the civil suits for $85,000. The judge ordered the receiver to acept the offer, on the ground that the Everests had already been declared guilty of criminal conspiracy and had been fined, and that a person could not be punished twice for the same offence!
It was not until June, 1889, that the receiver filed his account of the settlement of the affairs of the Buffalo Works. Of the $85,000 paid by the Standard, Matthews seems not to have gotten a cent. The entire sum went to settle the debts of the concern and pay the lawyers. The leading claimants amongthe lawyers were Thomas Corlett, Edward W. Hatch and Adelbert Moot, all of Buffalo. Their claims aggregated nearly $35,000. The receiver thought these fees exorbitant, and a referee was appointed by the court to take the testimony of the claimant as to their services. The testimony was voluminous, and the upshot was that the referee cut these claims to about $22,000. The final account filed by the receiver shows that the three gentlemen finally were paid about $15,000.
The large claims made by the lawyers and certain circumstances of the settlement have led the Standard, in later years, to advance a counter charge of conspiracy of much more seri-
[ 106 ]
