The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-12

a general description but Mr.. Harris said
If q general description was given ne would
move to strike out that part OF the testi-
mony. Mr.. Robinson. therefore, went on 70
describe the drafts specifically. The drafts
were put in the bank month OF 80 oe 7.or
never collected they were deposited TO the
credit of the Cabinet company so the COM
pany could draw against them.
The defense sought quibble When MT;
Robinson began to tell of the pay ron
checks One of these checks in question
fact that the money had been obtained was
shown by the books of the bank, but Mr..
Harris objected on the ground that the en-
try was not in the handwriting of Haughey
and that Mr. Robinson was not speaking
of his own personal knowledge. The court
promptly overruled this objection, stating
that the jury could draw its own conclu-
sions of what Mr.. Haughey was supposed
to know of his own bank books. When the
cabinet company wanted any money Tor It's
pay roll IL would bring down cneck WIN
a list of denominations in which 1t wanted
the money When the check was presented
a draft was drawn on the correspondent or
the Indianapolis National Bank at Chicago
and money obtained from the funds on de-
posit in Chicago to the credit OF the In
dianapolis bank. On Dec. 8, the day be-
fore the companys check was accepted for
money for the pay roll, the company was
overdrawn in its accounts at the bank ST.
647GO, and on the next day, after the pay
pany was overdrawn s9349.66. Mr.. Robin
son said the company Only deposited $3.50. Il
fense wanted the deposit tickets, but Mr.
Robinson said the tickets were probably in
the vaults. There was an intimation that
tered that day The bank book of the COM
pany was introduced to show what had
been deposited.
ACCOUNTS HEAVILY OVERDRAWN.
On March 1, 1893, Mr.. Robinson testified,
the company, through Reed, deposited a
check for $5,S02.S4 and obtained a Chicago
draft That day the companys account
with the bank was overdrawn s6,150.4O. The
draft was paid by the Chicago bank out
of funds to the credit of the Indianapolis
National. A draft on the London branch
was put in the local bank that day, but
was never sent forward for collection. 1t
was afterwards taken out by check for
s6,742.96. This check was Endorsed b. r.
bills payable. draft for $595S.N on the
Boston branch was never sent Tor collec-
ton.
Mr.. Robinson said draft for $3.50 was
drawn on London when the cabinet COM
pany was, according to the books, indebted
to the London house and the cabinet COM
pany received that amount of money from
the bank.
Mr. Kern then directed the witnesses at
tention especially TO counts SO and 40 OF
the witness TO an entry of May 8, 1893, when
the cabinet company was credited with hav-
| ing deposited $4,000.
BY Mr.. Harris-"If the witness knows OF
| his personal knowledge he may answer,
| otherwise we object to the question
| the books and see if the deposit was cash.
| and Mr.. Harris again objected saying If
| the deposit was in anything else of value
| 1t was the same as if Ii had been Deposited
in cash.
BY Judge Baker-"You will have to first
| find what was deposited, and then ascer-
tain if IL of value"
Mr.. Miller then interposed an objection
| because the counts mentioned charged
| the double purpose of defrauding the ageni
| and deceiving the bank examiner, while
| it charged the defendants with aiding and
| abettng with the single intent to- deceive
| the agent, and also because no count OF
| the Indictment averred that the defendants
| knew Haughey was president of the bank
| abetting could only be committed by ar
| officer of the bank or a person who knew
| that the one he aided was an officer, and
| he thought 1t was necessary to aver thi:
| Judge Baker held that the intent charged
| against Haughey not corresponding to tn,
| intent charged against the defendants Nigh
| Il shall hold said he, that the govern
ment is entitled to prove under the indict
| ment that Haughey president of tbs
| bank, and that the defendants knew tina
| he was such president"
| The court said he regretted that the in
| dictment had not been attacked in
/ judicial way in order that he should hav,
been compelled to read it, as he has no
L
| the defense was overruled.
The deposit ticket made out at the tim.
was then produced by the witness to show
| whether the deposit had been made il
| money or otherwise, and the same objection
| was made to it. The witness said the writ
ing upon the ticket was that of A. S. Reed
| The ticket was then read and showed tina
| the deposit represented two drafts each OF
Richmond; Boston and New York brancl
| houses He said the cabinet company re
ceived credit for the amounts of the draft
| deposited, and that on the day precedin,
this deposit the account of the cabinet com
| pany with the bank was $12, 1851 over
| drawn. He said the total amounts wer
| charged to the loan account in the hand o
Il. =: Rexford and entered on the discoun
| register. he was then asked if these draft
| were still items in the assets of the bank
and replied that these or renewals of then
| We're
The attention of the witness was the,
called to the first item on the deposi
ticket, a draft for $6,03S.4O on the RichmOn
| house, and he was asked to trace tina
draft to the time of the bank failure. Thi
| was objected to by MIR. Harris, but the OBJ
lection was overruled. Mr. Winter moves
| 10 strike out all of the evidence relating L
| that they were true and not false entries
This motion was overruled.
DRAFTS HELD BACK.
Mr.. Robinson then said the draft on tn
Richmond house was taken out May 6 an
a draft on the same company for the sam
amount deposited in its stead. This draf
| was ldheh out on June q, and draft 10
the same amount the same company de
posted and this draft was renewed O
July "a by another on the same compan,
and this last draft was on hand at the tim
| of the failure and was now a part of tn
assets OF the bank. He said the origins
draft nor none of those deposited to rene,
| IL were ever sent forward to Richmond fC
collection. He was asked if the books {
the bank would show if paper had bee
sent on for collection, and answered tina
they would He said the bills sent c
| foreign collection book would show IT.
| BY Mr.. Kern-By whose orders if yo
know, were these drafts held back and nc
| sent on for collection?
| WitneSs-They were held by instruction
from Mr.. Haughey
| The witness then traced in the same wa
| all OF these drafts, showing that none {
| others placed in the bank in renewal WEI
| now of the assets of the bank. AS TO IL
nrst three drafts mentioned on the depos
| ticket on Richmond for 81, OS2. 6S and IS g
and on New York for $7,272.4 10, he said I
| effort had been made to collect them ar
| they had never been outside of the ban
He said the employees had general instru
for collection from these various brand
houses with which the cabinet compar
| did business without special instruction
| from him. In regard TO the fifth item on II
| deposit ticket, draft for 1896 so on n
New York house, he said il was charged {
the remittance account. while the 70,
| above had been charged to the loan a
count. He said il was improper to char
the New York draft to the remittance a
| count. He explained the difference betwet
the remittance and loan accounts
Drafts drawn miscellaneously where Il