The Yellowstone journal., 1893-11-02
THE BACHELOR EXAMINATION.
Of the Hearing Before the
q. 8. Commissioner.

At the recOnvening after the noon re-
cess the discrimination Of E. w
Knight was begun. and tae witness in
answer to the interrogations Of the coun-
sci for the defense testified substantially
as follows:
! have devoted about five years to
bank bookkeeping, both in private ard
national banks. The system in private
banks is practically the same as in ma
tional banks The system in national
banks is not arbitrary or prescribed by
the comptroller Of the currency. The
general system is the same in all banks.
| came to the Stock Growers bank Aug.
9, 1893. My first act as receiver waa on
Aug. IL or Il. do not assume to know
anything in relation to the Burleigh
matter except what find on the books.
The witness was then asked what the
books disclosed in regard to this matter,
and he testified as on his direct exami.
nation, adding:
The entry cancels note 3731. Burleiph,
s315392 know that the entry referred
to applies to the Burleigh note. know
it from the records Of the bank The
first entry l find in relation to this note
is in bills receivable register, dated May
%, 1891, No. 373l, s3l5392 The next
entry Of this note is Oct. %. 1892. on
the general journal, where there is a
credit to Loans and Dis No. 373l,
Burleigh. s3l53.92. This means pay
ment Of this note. 1t is not fact that
in national banks, notes are frequently
taken off the records with old numbers
and given new numbers. The crediting
of a note cancels that note as far as the
records Of the bank are concerned. The
other entry in the journal is note No
1857. Burleigh, s32G;.92. 1t is $1,000
more than the original note The re-
ceipt attached to the note would make
the difference in the two notes. The
adding of $1,000 would make discrep.
ancy between the bills receivable ac-
count on the ledger and the face of the
note. The natural assumption would be
that the $1,000 had been used to pay
the assessment on the mining stock and
the amount added to the note on the
records. The note referred to in the
complaint as false entry is marked
copy" The entry of such note is an
lrregularity. The original Burleigh note
No. 3I3l does not appear in the records
oil the bank, but it IS in the portfolio.
According to the books Of the bank this
note does not appear as an asset. Note
No. 1857 is the Burleigh note that is
treated as an asset. The note No. 3731
appears as unpaid in the portfolio. The
portfolio is pocketboOk in which allthe
notes are kept. The only difference in
the two Burleigh notes is the amount
and the numbers. found the Logan
notes in the portfolio. l never figured
the interest on the two original Logan
notes to ascertain If the face of the
notes with accrued interest was the same
as the face of the new notes. / cannot
say whether or not the Logan note for
s5O4S.A is the total indebtedness Of Lo.
gan to the bank. Notes No. 367s,
e2JOO.0O, and No. 2679. 1881 .43. made by
Logan Oct. 7, 1889, appear, ! think. in
my report to the comptroller as part Of
the assets Of the bank. So far as I
know these notes are not actually paid
| also reported the Burleigh note az an
asset, except the $1,000. l presume /
found the Logan notes in the portfolio
They were all pinned together as found
them.
The next witness called was Leo Har-
mon, who testified on direct examination
as follows:
My name is Leo &. Harmon: am ~
years old. Have been employed as book
keeper in the Stock Growers National
bank from Oct. !. 1890, up to the closing
of the bank. and since then by the re-
ceiver. Witness being shown the
copy" Of the Burleigh note and interro-
gated concerning It said: The filling in
Of this copy" Of note No. 3I31 was done
by me. The signature Andrew f. Bur
leigh, was written by me. Since filled
in and signed this copy there has been
written across it in red ink the words,
Sent T.. A. Gardner, Seattle. Oct. 2i,
1892 The work "copy' in ink and the
same word in pencil have also been ad-
ded. The pencil notation of $1,000
increasing the note by that amount has
also been added. The number 373l has
been marked out with ink. and the num-
Der 4S57 written in in INK. and subse-
quently changed in pencil to 4s5s. Ny
work in the bank was keeping the books
Witness was here referred to the general
journal at date OF Oct. D, 1892 and con-
corning the entries Of that date said: ]
am familiar with the handwriting Of II.
F. Bachelor. The entry at the head Of
page 426 with the word "Rurleigh" in it.
is IN his handwriting. These entries re-
late to notes No. 373l and No. 475S
These entries were made from memo
randum slips. The slip for the credit
entry being produced the witness said:
This slip is in the handwriting Of II. F.
Bachelor. It reads as follows: "Miles
City, 1O-25-92, Credit b. r. 1881. Bur-
leigh. s3l5392" find this slip filed in
the box OF that date. Referred to the
general journal OF Dec. 81, 1880. and the
Logan entries the witness said: These
entries are in the handwriting Of G. l..
Merrill and read: '.Debit, S5O4S.24.
Credit ,3lOl, 100000. and 3lO2, s:262 &C.
The credit slip reads. "Miles City,
l2-a-N. Credit, B. r. 3lOl, Logan.
s25OOOO. b. r. 3l02. Logan, s2062.56''
The entry was made on the slip first; it
is in the handwriting Of H. F.. Batche-
lOr. Entries are made on clips first,
and the alps put on q spindle, and
taken from thence by the bookkeeper,
and entries made from them in the
books. The alps are then filed away.