The Yellowstone journal., 1893-11-02

Bachelor. think. The change OF the
figure to 8 in the number is also in the
/ handwriting Of Mr.. Batchelo.. The
person making the entry in the general
journal makes the number on the note.
The number 1857" is also in the hand
writing OF Mr.. Batchelor. The journal
entry OF this note is IN his handwriting
The number is simply to identify the
note on the bills receivable register. A
change would be made if necessary to
have it conform to the discount register.
The interest on the Logan notes OF Oct.
| 1883. together with the principal, equals
! the amount OF the two Logan notes OF
June 30. 1880, and the interest and prin-
| cipal OF these notes amount to the face
OF the Logan note Of Dec. 81, 1890.
Redirect.
The number on the note. the slip. the
general journal and the register ought
to be the same. II number is changed
in one place. it should be in all others.
At this point Of the proceedings the
examination was adjourned until 10
o'clock this morning.
MORNING sEssION.-Nov. 2.
Promptly at 10 o'clock the case was
called on and Leo harmon again placed
GA the stand for further redirect ex.
animation, as follows:
When | spoke OF the original Bureigh
note being sent to Seattle for collection,
| meant the note No. 3731. signed by
Mr.. Burleigh.
The prosecution here rested, where
upon the defence. by Judge Strevell.
moved for the discharge of Mr.. Batche-
lor on the ground that the prosecution
had failed to make a primas focie case.
The discussion on this motion led TO
lengthy and exhaustive arguments from
both sides. the point urged by the de-
fense, and which seemed to be well
founded in law, and properly urged on
the evidence, was that the intent to de-
fro"d by making false entries, must be
clearly established. 1t was argued by
both streveli and Middleton. on behalf
Of Mr.. Bachelor, that even thongh the
entries in regard to the Burleigh and
Logan notes might technically be as
sumed to be of the class designated as
false entries" there was no intent to
deceive or defraud anyone by them, for
the reason that the old notes, which had
represented assets in the bank, still re-.
manned as assets, and were of as much
value as ever they were, while the new
notes, which might have been, and prob.
ably we're made for the convenience of
the bank in keeping its books, were not
claimed as assets, and were in each case
kept attached to the old notes, so that
any person examining the affairs of the
bank could see at a glance what the
claims Of the bank against these parties
actually amounted to.
On the other side, Mr.. Porter held that
the making Of false entries such as were
here charged, was a distinct offense
under the statutes, and it was not for
the defense to say that no person had
been deceived or defrauded by the max
ing Of them. He held that there might
have been, and probably was. other mat
tiers or conditions not permitted to be
shown by testimony in this examination
that would afford reason for the max.
ing Of these entries. The discussion
grew particularly warm between Messrs.
Porter and Middleton, and each branded
the other as choice and ornate variety
of liar. regarding assertions that they
had banded back and forth. The men
dacity of each being established to the
satisfaction Of the other, the proceedings
assumed clearer and more sedate air.
Both sides having been heard at length
on the proposition to dismiss the case on
the evidence offered by the prosecution,
the Commissioner. after quoting from a
manual defining his duty in the matter.
orally delivered his decision, in which he
reviewed the fact that it was not denied
that Mr.. Bachelor had made the entries
designated in the complaint as false
entries. That he was now asked to dis
charge the defendant, not because the
prosecution had failed to prove the acts
charged, but because they had failed to
prove criminal intent. The instruc-
tions to U. s. Commissioners in exami-
nations like this one, were that it was
not necessary that the Commissioner
should find in the evidence sufficient
grounds for believing the defendent
guilty Of the charge in order to hold
him over to the grand jury. and while
he agreed with the argument of the de.
fence in relation to criminal intent. he
did not think it proper at this time to
grant the motion for discharge and
would therefore deny it.
A brief consultation here ensued be-
tween the defendant and his attorneys.
followed by the announcement by Judge
Strevell that "under the view that the
commissioner seems to take Of the mat.
ter. it appears that any evidence the de-
tense might offer would he uaeleaa. and