Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-14
CONCLUDING EVIDENCE.

The court room was packed again yes
terday morning. Mr.. Farnham was the
first witness called, and testified as to the
discharge Of the defendant, but didn't
know of the letter of recommendation Civ
en- to Thompson; Mr.. Reed exhibited to
Mr.. Lovejoy and myself the letter he re-
ceived from Thompson; we told him, I
think, to answer it; did not see Reeds an
swer; what Reed did in the matter was IN
der the firms direction.
Witness was asked what first aroused his
suspicion that Thompson was not dealing
fairly by the firm.
Objected to.
The court said it would be proper for
witness to state facts of his own knowledge,
or statements by Mr.. Thompson.
Witness then stated that Mr.. Thompson
discounted note which the firm gave to
Mr.. Sibley, on log contract amounting
to $500 or $500.
Odd Mr.. Thompson tell you where
he got the money with which to discount
this note?
Objected to.
Mr.. McNsir proposed to show that
Thompson claimed to his employers that
Judgment had been paid him, but that
they subsequently ascertained that such
was not the case.
The question was withdrawn and witness
was asked how he ascertained that McCaun
Bros. had not paid Thompson the judg-
ment which Thompson claimed had been
paid.
The defense objected, because the wit
ness did not know from his own knowledge
(having only heard it from Loyejoy) that
Thompson claimed that he got the money
from Mccain Bros.
Objection sustained.
After some cross firing the witness was re-
lieved without any cross-examinatisn.
The presence of Mr.. Reed was then de-
sired for further cress examination. but he
was not in the room.
The prosecution said they would send
for him.
The Court-Can't he be called after Mr..
Hart has addressed the jury, if you have
nc more witnesses.
Mr.. McNair-We have one question TO
ask another witness.
The Court-Call that witness then.
Mr.. Farnham was recalled and asked
what relative interest he and Lovejoy had
in the firm. A-Equal partners.
Mr.. Lovejoy recalled and testified that
he and Thompson had conversation in
1882, before July Is, about Thompson's
finances.
Q-What was the conversation?
Objected to-.
The Court-What do you expect to
prove?
Mr.. Wooley-We expect to prove that
Mr.. Thompson said he had no money ex-
cept what he received from Mccain Bros.
Mr.. Hart objected because they didn't
want the question of Mr.. Thompson's
finances gone into by insinuations; the
same principle that admitted it would have
entitled US to show where Mr.. Lovejos's
money went to during this time.
Mr.. Gilfillan-Who do you expect is on
trial here?
Mr.. Hart-Never mind; you may find
out before we get through.
A lengthy discussion followed, and the
objection was sustained.
THE DRF1NsE.
Mr.. Hart opened the defense with an
able address. J. A. Lovejoy and Mr..
Farnham were called; contributed some
evidence, after which Mr.. Thompson was
called to the stand and testified in calm.
Q-(Books shOwn) Are these the books
you kept?
A-Not all that kept; the petty cash
book is not here.
Witness continued and testified as to how
he received cash from Crombie, and
charged cash with it on the petty cash
book; testified as to the mode of his set
Element with Crombie; after he had settled
I oil ha do Il,
letter &c" opposite the entry, to show that
l had settled that entry with Mr. Crombie;
it didn't signify that [ got all that in cash;
he frequently made returns of moneys he
had paid, and these were all charged to me
as cash; all the cash that came in went into
the petty cash book on one side, and al! dis
bursements on the other; left all books
in the office; the books were never secreted
from the firm the financial matters were
left with Mr.. Lovejoy, and he knew all
about them; these items were dropped to
balance the cash on the ledger, because Mr..
LovEJoT TOOK THE MONEY
from the drawer at different times, and
gave no account of the moneys dropped,
beyond saying he had to use money for
outside affairs; he directed me to drop
cash by checking upon the petty cash
book.
Mr.. Gardner aside straight perjury;
straight perjury"
Witness-The amount might have been
taken at different times, but 1 aggregated
it in balancing up; witness testified as to
the conference with Reed regarding get
ting an express contract; I transferred
some money and notes to Reed; they were
paid at the termination of an agreement
about getting an express contract with
the Manitoba road, and about fit
ting up offices, etc., if we did get
it; he thought it would take money to IN
fiuence the right parties, and wanted 1
should put out $4,000; told him could not
spare that money,but he finally thought he
could use my note, but wanted some mon
ey for incidental expe ses; 1 dated the
notes back at Reeds suggestion, so that
it would not appear that they were gotten
up for that purpose; this was all in my Of
fee at the same time; Farnham & Love
joys books had not been discussed up to
this time; after the money was paid we
went into Duhnke's, and as we were about
to get up, Reed said, ''Fm going to check
your books" L replied: ''You can check
II T.. Il A.