Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-06
THE BANK CASES.
SECOND DAYov raR TRIAL or GEORGE
II, Balm.
Expert and Other Testimony-Ths Part
nership Of whitehead
and Balm.
ICorreponaenes of,hs Rlchmcnd Disp ,tonl

se*N
NovFoLK, Move nber 8, 1885.
The United sites Circuit Court opened
this morning at IL O'Clock, with quite .
throDg Of spectators and the entire oar OF
The two cities IN attendance, the Exchange
Nutional-Bank cases being on hand. Sew
eraI technical points were argued IN regard
TO the deialcstion when the bank closed IN
Al ri, 1855, after which the examination OF
Witnesses WAS proceeded with. Dir. ii. ID
Buckley, the expert accountant, resumed
lis testimony, and stated IN detail the IN.
debtedDess OF various other parties TO the
hank besides Nj. George Nj. BIN, the ac-
cused.
Mr.. Thomas OFT. paying.teller OF The
Exchange Bank, was The next witness, and
testified n to his kno Wedge OF the alleged
go partnership OF Mr.. Balm, the cashier.
ana Mr.. Whitehead, the president Of the
hank. HIS only knowledge OF the CO.
partnership was that there was an account
on the books Of the bank in the name OF
Whitehead e. Balm. Mr.. Carter Scott and
James Elan, clerks OF the bank, were also
examined in regard to the same matter.
MIR. OFT said the clearing house settle
menfs were made by him. The clearing
house settlement Of Balm Brothers OF March
%, 1885, was SI0G,9i7,94. This account
was carried not ss cash, but a. a clearing
house settlement.
The defence, by Richard Wake, held that
certain checks presented were not drawn
by George NJ. BAN, Jr.
The prosecution held that they were
drawn 10y the instructions and orders Of
George NJ Balm, Jr.
The checks were subsequently with.
drawn by the prosecution.
Witness. rcsuming: Later the indebted
Dess SHOWN against Balm Brothers by the
clearing house WAS S32l,74G. Witness
knew OF no cOllatersls 10 secure its pay
ment. Witness had no knowledge OF any
partnership between Whitehead and Balm
beyond their individual entries in the
ledger OF the bank. The Indebtedness OF
Balm Brothers in the bank on the ID Of
April, 1885, could not be told exactly with
out looking st the books.
The District Attorney: "Was Il over a
millionf"
Witness: 81 guess it was"
Colonel Gibson, for the Government, re-
called TIE witness Bulkley and asked II
there were any other other Oyerdrlfts
besides those mentioned.
Major Legn Il. Page, for the defence,
objected TO tins question, as II was matter
OF Injustice 10 the accused To bring in my
oyerdrait not mentioned in the indictment.
Mr.. James Lyons, for the prosecution,
asked that the question be sustained, as 1t
was necessary to prove similar acts to show
that great injury had been done to the bank
Ly regular system OF overdTaws.
The Court held that the question was too
general, and that IL must have particular
reference.
After considerable discussion, the witness
was permitted 10 answer direct question
as 10 Balm Brothers indebtedness TO Tie
bank on the 2Sth OF March, lSS5-ylZ.,
oyerdraw. SS,170; pro lorna, 100000;
clearing house, Sl06.9l7; discount, Balm
Brothers, $3.50, 900; called loans, SSS, 200;
aggregate sI,7O0.000. The total indebted
ness OF Baiu Brothers aud Balm & Whit
bead was S1,sCS,6l9.F7. The witness was
turned over to the defence aud cross-cy1m.
med Ly Mr. Richard Wake, who pre-
scntcd the bapk-bOok OF Balm Brotie
snd asked what balance was due Balm
Brothers April ,, 1885. Witness answered
;CGS.3j. The defence then presented the
checks in several counts OF the indictment,
which the witness verified and eXplne1.
ana also the distinction between the record
Of the bank and papers in the hands OF the
receiver.
William II. Peters, the receiver Of the
bank, was called. and testified at length a.
to what was the condition OF the accounts
OF the bank when he took charge, and
what cOlaternls he held as securitie.,, for
the debts due the bank; also, as to the in
debtedness OF George NJ. Balm individually
and Jointly.
MIR. Peters was on the stand when the
court adjourned.