Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-20
the aggregate of the stubs and those of the

the aggregate of the stubs and those of the
reports"
Plea for Hastings Methods.
The attorneys for the defendant objected
to this question, on the ground, they said,
that Hastings often filed out the stubs be-
fore collecting the money, and in some cases
he did not get the money, and, of course,
could not be held responsible for money not
received.
Attorney Elphinstone then asked the wit
ness if he could show any amount on the
stubs that hot not been handed in. To this
question the witness replied:
Nothing in this receipt book except 800
In the January receipts here is the hand
writing of Mr.. McKirdv, which shows that
the 500 was unaccounted for.
Glow did you know this was not ac-
counted for?"
Il could not find il in the other book sup
posed to give a summary of his collections
Glow did YOU come 10 mark that $50 on
the stub?"
Because Mr.. Hastings undoubtedly re-
ccived ii, as We have his receipt, which was
given for the amount and the check which
he received and indorsed." The receipt
and check at this point were offered to COM
plete the evidence.
Attorney Elphinstone then asked the wit
ness if he knew the handwriting on the
check and receipt. The witness replied that
he did.
Attorney Elphinstone then asked the
same question about the difference of ag-
gregates of the stubs and reports.
Attorney Marshall objected again and
cited number of cases in court where such
testimony was prohibited He was willing,
however, to go over the books and compare
item for item, but the prosecution did not
take kindly to this, owing to the tima 1t
would consume. Alderman Gripp would
not decide either way, and this gave rise TO
considerable discussion. The objection was
finally lost in the discussion by the prose-
cution offering the daily blotter kept by Mr.
Hastings and his reports ii the Controller
as evidence
Attorney Marshall then cross-examined
the witness but brought out nothing of i'm
portance except that Hastings did not make
any itemized reports of any size until about
April of this year.
John 5IcKirdy Filings Facts.
John Mckirdy was placed on the stand.
He first corroborated the statements OF G.
w Bigger as to the examination of the
books. and then said that the reports did
not correspond with the receipts on the
blotter Just then Attorney Scandrett
said: This report is unreliable, and, of
course. don't show everything turned in.
To this Attorney Elphinstone replied:
And that is what we will show by the re-
ports.
Mr. McKirdy was then requested to COM
pare the books and call off some amounts
that were supposed to have been received
and then unaccounted for. He called off
several small amounts, which aggregated
about S375 All these were Oh the blotter
Kept by Hastings as receipts, but were not
20 be found on his monthly reports. At
torney Elphinstone then asked the same
question about the difference of aggregates.
Attorney Marshall objected again, but be-
fore he did so Mr. McKirdy answered
S2,3l4
Attorney Marshall insisted that the state
ment of an expert did not prove anything,
and if that was to be offered as evidencehe
was going to go over each stub and item in
the daily blotter. This was again the sub
iect for discussion for more than half
hour. and as Alderman Gripp did not de-
eide in favor of either side because he said
he wanted to give the defendant all possible
show, it was then determined that stenog-
rapher should be sent fer and the books
gone over
While Attorney Scandrett was out for a
stenographer paper was shown on which
was written each separate sum supposed to
have been embezzled. Attorney Marshall
agreed to go on with the case if his side
was furnished with a copy Of this paper.
This was agreed to. but as the paper could
not he copied at once owing to the number
Of accounts on it, the case was adjourned
until Thursday.