The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-12-30
KERR'S SHORTAGES.
A Morning Session Devoted to
Taking Testimony.
The Books Kept by Defendant Produced in
Court-A Continuance to segregate
Entries in Them.


James p. Kerr, to recover S25,000 on an as
signed account for money received by the
defendant while acting as cashier of the
San Francisco CALL Company, was re-
sumed before Judge Hunt and jury yes
terday morning, and for further cross-exam-
nation by the defense Loring Pickering was
recalled. When Mr.. McEnerney proceeded
to cross-examine, an objection was inter-
posed on the ground that Mr.. Daingerfield
had already cross-exsmined the witness,
and that it was contrary TO all rules that
two attorneys representing the same de-
PENDANT should oss-eXamine the same wit
ness. The Court admitted that tiis was so.
but that In this case he would allow Mr..
McEnerney to proceed.
In your former testimony you said that
since 1870 you had been the business mana
ger of the MORNING CALL. Is that state
ment correct?" was asked.
Yes, sir; except when was absent
In response to further questions, Mr..
Pickering said that John White was never
business manager except in qualified
sense. He. recollected the libel case of
G. K. Fitch against M. H.. de Young tried
in Judge Firms department.. =
" Did you hear the testimony Of White in
that case?'
~ do not think did,"
Did you read report of his testimony
in THE C4kLL?p
An objection to the question was sustained
ON the ground that it was Irrelevant.
=. -" Did YOU not write an editorial published
in The CALL, styling White business mana
ger of that paper?" :
:" do not recolleet" $50.
THE GAEL published legal notices, did
it not?"
:: al presume So"
Similar questions were propounded. and
to them the Court sustained objections. to
which rulings exceptions were taken.
=. :. AN: ACCOUNTANT CALLED. =.
Walter Fltz George was the next witness
sworn: and testified that he knew the plain
tiff in the case but not the defendant; that
he Is an expert accountant; THAT he had eX-
amined the. books of the San Francisco
CALL Company up to June s. 1889, and that
he began the Investigations from june l..
1873. -. 49,
:, ;, What was the excess of receipts over dis
bursements: daring that period?"
The question was objected TO and the w.t.
ness stated that lie had examined all the
books kept by the firm. -
The books were placed In the hands of the.
witness. who was asked to examine them
and say if.they are the books he: had eX-
amined as:expert. He said three. cash books,
extending from.June 1. 1873, to June s. 1889,
had been examined by him also the counter
books and day books exhibited.
The bucks were 'ffered IN evidence, which
offer was objected to until it be established
that they are in the handwriting of the de-
PENDANT.
Attorney Crothers. for plaintiff. said that
1t had been established that Kerr had charge
OF the books and is responsible for the writ
ing therein, either made by him or under
his diIectian.
Judge Hunt held that the case must
eventually into an accounting, and the
books should not have been put before a
jury. until an accounting had been taken.
He did not. see how an accounting could be
avoided, as there are nearly ten thousand
items 10 be examined. =
:: AN ADMISSION OF ABSENCE. =:
Attorney Beieher. for plaintiff, admitted
that the defendant was absent from the
Office at times.
Judge Hunt said that il the accounts are
admitted they are bound to go into an ac-
counting, and he would sustain the objec-
ton to the admission Of the books in evil
dence for the purpose of an accounting.
The witness was next asked: :. VIII you
state il you have compared the books and
found differences between the entries in the
defendants cash-book and the counter
book ?'' -
An objection to the question was sustained
on the. ground that it had not been shown
that the cash-bQok was the defendants book.
Mr.. Pickering was again called to the
stand and aske if the*defendant had or had
not the sole charge Of the books produced in
court?:
Again the .defense:interposed an objection
and this time ON. The ground that the defend
ant did not do all the writing in the books.
n n ID
Mr.CrotheTs stated that all the entries in
the books were either made by the Defend
ant or under his instructions, aud that: the
defendant is responsible for such entries. :
The: objection to the question, however,
was sustained.
Then the witness examined the day and
cash books and said they were kept by. the
defendant aud are the books of THE. CALL
Company; He also identified a little red
book found in ii drawer in IHE CALL Office
as in the handwriting of the defendant.
The entries in the: counter books were made
by several persons =. =
a. Were the entries: made in; these books,
not in The handwriting of defendant. made
at your instance?"
Objection Sustained. -. :: .
WAS it Mr.: Kerr's duty as cashier to
-transcribe entries In the counter. book into
the Gasl-b9e 2" ..*>
at was" :.
WAS or was not the defendant respon-
sible for the amount received2""
Objection sustained; :. :: -
" Did the defendant admit the taking of
money ?"' :.
Objection sustained.
Did you employ:o authorize any one ex-
cept the defendant to mako entries in these
bOoks?'
II did not" =.
"Was any one authorized by THE CALL
COMPANY to receive money except the de-
PENDANT, except: when he won't to New
York;"
mo. sir"
TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS MADE.
"Willyou state. if it was the duty of de-
PENDANT to examine the books and see il the
cash c0rresronded with the entries?"
Objection sustained:
Did you forbid Kerr to permit any other
person than himself. to make entries in the
books%
Objection sustained.
Have you any personal knowledge of the
amount OF Kerr's defalcations?''
only know from what has been re-
ported by the book-keepers and experts
On cToss-examinatlon witness was han ded
caSh-boOk and asked If certain hand
writing was that of Kerr. He said he was
not certain and would rather an expert
would pass upon the handwriting.
The witness said that Kerr was placed in
charge Of the books.
W idieSS CltL NcoIx6 was recalled and
asked to testify as to certain balances.
which was objected TO on the ground that it
had not been established that the books
were those of the defendant, and the objec-
ton was sustained.
SEGREGATION. OF THE ENTRIES
Herbert L. Schmidt testified that he was
employed in The CALL office at the same
time as the defendant. II think" he said,
am familiar with Kerr's handwriting,
fn
books. 1 did not work in these booxs at
Kerrs request. l don't remember that /
saw persons write in the books in Kerr
presence"
Judge Hunt suggested that Mr.. Bowie or
some one else familiar with Kerr's hand
writing segregate in the books such writing
as Is his and such as is not. For this pur-
pose continuance until next Monday
would De better. as one OF the jurors desired
to leave the city during the afternoon. So
the further hearing of the case was con-
tlnued until 10 o'clock Monday morning,
each side being required to deposit with the
bailiff Its share OF court expenses.