Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-02-13
A DELAMATER POINT
Gained at Meadyilie That Nav
Upset the Case of the
Prosecution.
AN INVENTORY RULED OUT
On Which the Lawyers Relied to Sus-
tain Their Charge of Fraud.
HELPLESS AND ALONE IN A HUT.
The Pitiable Case of a Stranger Found
Near Beaver Falls.
AN INVENTORY RULED OUT
HELPLESS AND ALONE In A HUT.
NEWSY NOTES FROM NEARBY TOWNS

rsrEcIA1, TELEGRAM TO THE DIsPArCH.I
MEADvILLE, Feb. 12.-Al the various
roowers of the prosecution are being brought
to bear on the celebrated case of Murray
versus DeIamater & Co, as the fate of a
score of suits hinges on this one. AS re-
suit. considerable delay is experienced at
all times. the battle having become one en-
tirelv between the opposing counsel, with
the Court as a mediator. Cross-fring en-
sues after every question and objection
The first witness called to-day was w. 5.
MURRAY, the ostenslble prosecutor. His
testimony dealt entirely with the different
deposits he had made up to and including
the dav before the bank was closed. His
son was also called and corroborated the
dates given.
The next name called was that of James
E Mcfarland, Jr., bookkeeper for the bank
at the time of the failure. There was no an
swer to the call, which was twice repeated.
He is badly wanted to answer certain vital
questions regarding the finances of the bank
at the time Of the failure.
The Defense Promises the " illness.
His absence created considerable surprise,
and lively tits followed between the oppos-
ing counsel, the prosecution demanding en-
phaticallv that an attachment be issued by
the Court to compel the bookkeeper's at
tendance, and the defense as strenuously in
sisting that this was not necessary.
Finally, on a promise by the defense that
Mcfarland would be produced at the proper
time the matter was dropped temporarily.
ncll loH NV
the prosecution to assist in proving de-
posits, the evident intention being to make
out the prosecutions case that the bank was
1nsolyent when deposits were taken from
Murray He acknowledged the dates given
rs correct, to the best OF his belief Several
pertinent questions were objected to, and
Mr.. Delamater retired for time, after
stating that he was acting cashier from JAN
nary l, 1883, to the day of the failure.
W. S. McGunnegle, who was the cashier
from the time of the founding Of the bank
In May, 1876 until succeeded by Victor
Delamster in 1885, gave some interesting
testimony as to the organization of the in
stitution.
A small Capital for a Big Bank.
Attorney ROddv-What was the amount
of paid in capital at the time of organiza-
lion?
Cashier McGunnegle-As near as I can
remember, s., 500.
Roddy-Wasn't that a rather small
amount OF capital to put into a bank
handling such large sums, and State de-
pository at that?
McGunnegie-Well, the bank expected
10 run on credit, and the amount of money
paid in really made no difference so long as
The members of the firm were individually
liable.
Roddy-What was your interest in the
bank?
NcGunnegle-I had a one-eighth in
Ierest.
The prosecution here offered the ap-
praisers inventory of the assigned estates,
hoping, of course, bv this one stroke to
prove the insolvency of the bank for wears,
as the appraisers figures showed very badly
for the defense.
Strenuous objections were again made by
the defense to the placing of such state
ments in evidence, and the Court sustained
the objection, stating that the appraisers
inventory was made up entirely for basis
Df the assignee's bond, and was document
not issued by and with the consent of de-
PENDANTS.
a Bull Run for the Prosecution
This ruling is clear victory for the de-
Tense, as il makes it harder than ever to
corner the case on the insolvency issue
The aSsignee's deed and other papers
were admitted, and George f. Haskins, of
the firm of Haskins & McClintock, the as
signees, was placed upon the stand, and
closely questioned by the prosecution as to
the real value of various items placed down
rs assets. Witness stated that they had
found overdrafts amounting to nearly S7O,-
600 Many of these overdrafts were by
banks or persons who had counter claims,
so that no certain value could be placed
upon them as assets The entire afternoon
was consumed by this witness, he detailing
at length what is already known as to the |
value of the personal property of the de-
PENDANTS al the time the assignment was
made December 4, 1890. His statements
made prospects for the creditors look bluar
than ever, and the rest of the dav was con-
sumed in counsel wrangling over technical
points