Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-08-28

Brown 4 Co. and endorsed in tho fifm m
name nv Mr., Dashiell. At that time mr
Daehiell had the right TO sigr the ntm
name in firm transactions There was % % .
record Of the check on the firms books. Inc
check seemed TO have been deposited Win
the Merchants and Pianters' osvinSes
Bank, and by them collected from tne
Planters Bank. The firm kept no account
with the First National Bank. but ne nsd
seen checks Of Mr. Dssbieil's on that m
stitutiou. The Parsons matter, ne tesu-
fed, was n frm matter, but the check was
never audited on the books. Neither ne
nor his brother ever made transaction Ia
the name of the firm on individual &C.
count without mentioning II TO the otncr
partners the day before or very soon aftef'
THE MYERs's TRANSACTION.
"How about the Myers's transaction"
asked Mr. Elicit. Did your brother men
tion it to the other members OF the nrm
right awayY"
John Thompson Brown l. Co. testified
the witness had nothing to do with tnat
transaction. Two Of. the members were
interested in the purchase OF the properly;
The Myers property was bought and sofa
before any. .monep passed. The check for
the commissions to j. Thompson Brown a.
Co. was deposited to his (witnesse's) indi-
vidual credit and he afterwards gave MS
personal check for the amount. He was
not positive as TO whose order the cheek
was made payable. 1t was some. time
after the Meyers transaction that It was
mentioned to the other partners: de had
discounted notes that came to the trln IN
which he had an individual interest, but !
tho other members were always advised
Of Il.
Mr. Brown was subjected to o rigid cross
examination. the object OF which was 10
show that members Of the firm were ac-
customed TO make individual transactions.
in which the Others did not share.
Mr.. Elicit started to ask about the HuD-
bard case, but the Commonwealth object
ed and the question was ruled out.
THE QUESTION ARGUED.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Browns TO-
marks Commonwenlths Attorney smith
opposed the granting of bail. Counsel for
the accused, he said, bad rested the case
on the Commonwoalth's testimony and
none OF the evidence had been questioned;
Mr.. Page concluded that Parsons had
stultified himself eand that it had been
Demonstrated that Mr.. Browns memory
was at fault. and Mr. Elicit argued for
bail simply as matter of feeling. Mr.
Cutchins concluded that the witness Par
sons seemed TO be honest. but he was evi-
dently mistaken, a. his evidence was con-
fiicting.
The Justice after patiently hearing tno
argument, announced that he would grant
bail in the sum of $500 for the appear
ance of the accused on the I'd OF Septem-
Der. and Mr.. John r. Chappell became MIR.
Dashiell's bondsman.
Why Mr.. Brown Did Not Appear
III response to a witness subpoena issued
by Police-Justice Crutchtield Mr.. LeRoy
Il. Brown appeared before the Police Court
yesterday morning and stated that the
reason why the paper could not be served
upon him III time for him to have appeared
at the examination of the witnesses III the
Dashiell case on Tuesday morning was be-
cause he was out of the city on other busi-
ness.
Mr.. Brown stated that he had delivered
to the Commemorative Attorney all the
books and papers appertaining to the Lud-
wig estate. but that there were possibly
few other documents containing reference
20 that estate in the lockers of his brother.
Mr. J. Thompson Brown, TO which he had
no keys, bat that as soon az the latter re-
turned to the city they could be turned
over TO the Commonwealth az evidence.
Mr. Smith the Commemorative Attor-
nov told the Justice that he had been in-
formed by Judge Christian that he ad-
vised Mr. Brown TO 90 away on privete
business matter on Monday evening, and
that this had no connection whatever
with the DashIell affair