The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-14
MANIPULATING THE DRAFTS.
MIR. Robinson Goes Further Into De-
tails OF the Transaction.

MIR. Robinson Goes Further Into De-
tails of the Transaction.
When the United States District Court
convened yesterday morning Mr.. Kern, who
had left the court room before adjournment
the evening before. was again in the court
room. The examination on the part of the
prosecution was conducted by Assistant
District Attorney Corr. however Mr.. Kern
sitting beside him and assisting him in the
arrangement of papers and other details.
Mr.. Robinson was still on the stand giving
evidence from the various books that were
brought forward
The first bit of evidence was a check
drawn on the bank for S, ,297 40, which was
handed to Mr.. Robinson and examined by
him. He said 1t was a check given for Chi
cago exchange and purchased a draft on
the Commercial National Bank of Chicago.
The check was dated Dec. /, 1892, and the
account of the cabinet company with the
bank on that day was overdrawn s1,56405.
He said on that day the cabinet company
deposited with the bank draft on the
London company for s, ,297.4 40 which was the
same amount as the check given by them
for exchange on Chicago He read the draft
deposited on that day, with the indorse-
ments upon 1t, and said 1t had been re-
tuihSu uilDdlu anu OH AldTCn 10, 1885, ndQ
been placed on the remittance account He
was asked II it was properly placed on this
account. and replied that it was not. On
March % 1t was renewed by another draft
of the cabinet company on the London
branch and was placed in the loan account
This last draft, renewing the other, was for
1900 sterling, and was never sent forward
for collection. 1t was accepted by F. A
Coffin, president He was asked If it was
properly charged to the loan account, but
the question was objected to by Mr.. Har-
ris. The counsel for the government sdid
they wanted to show that this last draft.
which had not been sent forward for COL
lection, was placed in the loan account
when ii should have been placed in the re-
mittance account and that the other, which
had been sent forward and returned unpaid.
IL should have been placed In the loan ac-
count. Mr.. Harris said if he took draft
person and deposited it with the under
standing that II was not to be sent forward
for collection it was. in law. the same as a
note. Judge Baker said the objection would
be good If II was apparent from the trans
action that it was In good faith. but where
there was question as TO whether the
transaction was honest or not one of the
elements of proof is that Ii was not in ac-
cordance with the customs of banking.
whether this was in accordance with ap-
proved methods of banking. The question
was then read by the stenographer. The
question was: WAS ii properly charged to
that account? Judge Baker then sustained
the objection to the form of the question
and II was reformed. The witness said that
according to approved methods of banking
Ii would not have been placed in the loan
account. The witness was then asked If,
according TO approved methods of banking
the draft would have been held and not
sent forward for collection, and answered
that il would not. The draft of March %
was renewed on June p, 1898, by another
draft drawn by the cabinet company on the
London branch for $5457.49. The witness
as the one it renewed, with the interest
added. 1t was not sent forward for collec-
tion. was never paid. and was now part OF
the assets of the bank.
The witness was then told 10 turn 70
the account of the cabinet company with
the London branch on Dec 2 1892. and state
the condition OF the accounts between the
two companies on that day He said the
books showed the London branch to be in
debted TO the cabinet company in the sum
| of 1862 and at the close Of that days
business the cabinet company indebted
| 10 the London branch in the sum of s., Gil 2S
which was the difference between $,3Ss. 4.
| and S, 1910 charges and credits OF the day
UNDER COUNT s
The government then announced that Il
| intended to introduce evidence under Count
| OF the indictment. The witness was ther
| told to state the condition Of the account