The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1877-10-26

lime for the amount of $4,000, the
bank receiving no money for it; but
which was counted as a cash item by
the cashier, and included in the
amount of cash till the morning the
bank was examined, when it was
credited TO that account, and taken
from the amount of the cash. The
bank was not cheated or detrauded
out of the value of anything by this
neither was there any in
tention upon my part, or any one else,
so far as / know, that iE should be.
The amount charged to the stsurplus
lund" account on the 18th day of July,
1876, the day the bank examiner was
there, was $7,94l.76, not one cent OF
which was taken by me. But this |
SO charged, was the aggregate |
of sundry past due and worthless |
notes, which were charged to that ac-
count and credited to "bills receive |
able" In the evening of the day of ex-
l gave the bank examiner,
in the presence of the Vice President |
OF the bank, an itmeiZed list, which
J ound in the cashiers drawer, giving
the number and amount OF each nOL.,
and which the examiner alter look
ing it over requested to take with him
to be embodied in his report 10
the department, tn which ] readily
assented without copying it. Had |
access TO the bill register and cash
journal, / could show this court the
names of the makers and the amount
of each of these notes. The amount
$7.S5S.S6, that am charged with tax
ing from the bank on the 18th OF July,
1876, was the amount drawn on a
check against just and correct bal
apce due Lewis Oge, and by him and
in his own hand writing. He is q
responsible citizen of Texas, living
near San Antonio. This amount was
drawn after banking hours that day
in exchange on our Kansas City, Chi
cago and New York correspondents
payable to his order, and collected by
him. had no interest in this account.
and was not benefited by it. The
amount of the other two items, one for
81, 05S. 2l charged t'surplus fund.-" and
the other for Sl,067.36, charged "prcfit
and loss" aggregating So, 1850, on the
30th of August, 1876, on the day the
bank susL ended, is the amount of this
sscash check,' which L have already
explained, which, when, it was return
ed to Mr.. Woodcock's account on the
balance book, was carried as cash
item till the bank suspended, when it
they appear on the books of the bank.
The former account not being large
enough to cover the entire amount, it
was divided, and the balance charged
TO the latter account. / solemnly af-
firm that did not have any know
ledge of its existence prior to, or on
the day it was created. Nor for a
half Il month afterwards, and I have
never received to the value of one
cent On that account, now, sir, these
orr ms, the certificate of deposit
for $4,000, the amount of notes
charged Surplus funds" of $7,94176,
the amount of Louis Oge check of 81, )
$685., and the amount of this cash
cheek of $5,125.6O, aggregating an
amount of So, C2'-H2, was fully eX-
| planned to the bank examiner, to
whom the books, papers and assets Of
the bank were turned over by sworn
statements of the officers of the bank
for the purpose, as it was alleged, tC
guide the receiver in settling up its
! affairs, and TO prevent needless litiga-
| ton! The present receiver made ont
those statements, who was at thai
time acting as clerk for the examiner
and who, l suppose, has them in hi:
possession. Sir, it is passing strange
that with these fulf explanations made
/ to the bank examiner and the receiver
of the bank, how they could have beer
charged to me, in this court, and pub
Iished to the world, as funds that haC
embezzled and stolen from the bank
unless it was to trump up false
charges, to prejudice the court, and its
officers, and the public mind against
me, in advance of trial; as l see
that the complaining witnesses before
the grand jury, at the time that these
indictments were found against me
were these very parties. 1t seems tx
me, that they must have known thai
there is-Do evidence to show that go
tAby money whatever, on any of these
jcounts l have named. The parties
who are pursuing me, well know thai
the public mind, jast at this time, il
sensitive to the slightest touch of sus-
piciOn against any one who falls, anC
more especially, against a bank anC
its officers. 1t seems TO be a matter o.
special qualification, with some Vi
these parties, that SO many large
banks in st. Louis, Chicago, and else
where, have so recently failed, there
by adding TO this widespread pre-
ljudice of the people at the time o.
these trials, under these circumstances
false report would travel around the
world, while the truth is getting on it;
boots to follow.
Now, as to the last and remaining
charge of embezzlement. From the
amount of it, it is intended to cover
my indebtedness to the bank, as evil
denced by sundry notes held by the
bank on an Overdraft charged to my
account, and which was turned OveI
to the bank examiner, and which my
sworn statement shows is justly
due from me to the bank. The over.
draft on the book against me was
made few days before the bank sus-
pended, when 1 was absent from the
bank, and at Emporia, by the charg.
ing of note 1 owed to an outside
party, to my account, which, with
added interest, amounted to 5000, and
which the bank paid for me, my &C.
count not being good for the full
amount of it, made an overdrafE or
the bank against me. The vice presi-
dent, on my return home, told me that
the note was presented for payment or
that day, was due, and if not paid
would have been protested, and as be
supposed it would be favor to me, lie
directed it to be paid.
The cashier and myself are charged
with making false entry on the 3Oth
of August, 1876, in the account of the
st. Louis National bank, of $1,000
This item was a note of mine. which
was discounted by the st. LOUIS bank,
and when due, was charged TO the ac-
count of our bank. It would be un-
fair to the cashier it 1 did not explain
the circumstances of this note, to show
that iG was a proper credit to have
been made. This note was first made
about the middle of March, 1875, to be
discounted at the st. Louis National
bank, and the proceeds placed to the
credit of the First National bank OF
Wichita, for the purpose of taking uI
a note of Rine, due in that bank, fol
about that amount. This note was
endorsed by the cashier and the vice
president and the bank, and also by
two friends of mine at Emporia
When this note came due it was re-
newed, the same parties endorsing it
When it came due the last time, it was
charged to the account of our bank
and it was not credited at that time
On the Both of August, 1876, i gave
my notes to the bank, fer this amount,
with added interest, and the st. Louis
National bank was credited.
The reason I became involved In sc