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


a teller. Mr.. Haughey was president
of the bank during all OF that time.
He said no one else seemed 10 have any
thing TO do with the bank. He had been
messenger, mailing clerk individual book
keeper and receiving teller. He was ac-
quainted with defendants in a business way
was acquaited with the method or book
keeping in vogue, and was familiar with
knew the amount of past due paper at the
time of the failure He was handed
batch of papers by Mr.. Kern and asked 70
examine them and state whether they were
papers that were in the bank at the time
of the failure. He answered in the affirm-
ative.
THE TELLER'S EVIDENCE.
"You may state the amount OF money
represented by the papers, said Mr.. Kern.
The defense objected to the witness an
swering the question. but the objection
was overruled, and in answer to a ques-
tion by Mr.. Kern he stated that the total
amount of the papers was $43. 415.S5. He
said they consisted of drafts drawn by
the Indianapolis Cabinet Company on the
Indiana Cabinet Company, Of Boston. He
then began reading the papers TO the jury,
giving only the numbers of the drafts or
other papers and amounts, with names or
drawer and drawee, with such indorse-
ments as appeared upon the drafts. The
list of drafts, notes, ETC., contained In the
Drafts drawn by the Indianapolis Cab
met Company and the United States once
n Aug. oiS:' i. 1888. 5000; drawn by the Indian
apolis Veneer and Panel Company on the
Indiana Cabinet Company OF Boston, ana
June 16. 1893, 1929 40; drawn by the
United States Office Furniture Company
the Indiana Cabinet Company, and ac-
cepted by it and indorsed by the Indianap-
oils Cabinet Company.
June 49, 1893. s, OO0 and interest drawn
by the indianapolis Cabinet Company on
Indiana Cabinet COmnanV accented.
June is. 1898, $500 and interest; drawn
by the indianapolis Cabinet Company on
the Indiana Cabinet Company, signed by
July "a, 1893. $S.l275O and interest; drawn
by the indianapolis Cabinet Company on
ed by F. A Coffin, president.
June 6, 1895, $o,@2.4 and interest; drawn
accepted by the Indiana Cabinet Company
by F. A. Coffin, president.
The witness then testified that the Indt-
upon the books Of the bank for all Of the
drafts on the Boston concern, and the
amounts were placed to the credit of the
Indianapolis Cabinet Company.
He was next handed a batch Of papers
which he said were drafts on the Wooten
by the Indianapolis Cabinet Company. The
total amount of these drafts. he said, was
s45, &c. and the Indianapolis Cabinet Com
their account in the bank. 1t was from
this that they checked money from the
bank. The drafts were as follows:
June Is, 1893, $S,35S90 and $22l9O interest;
drawn by the United States Office Fur
niture Company on the Wooten Office Desk
Company, and accepted by F. A. Coffin,
July 4, 1898, $1,000 and s242 interest; drawn
by the United States Office Furniture Com
pany on the Wooten Office Desk Company
by 7. b. Coffin, vice president.
July 19, 1898, s4.7SO.50; drawn by the United
States Office Furniture Company on the
Wooten Desk Company and accepted by t.
B. president.
July Is, 1898, SS,COO and s215.l2 interest;
drawn by the United States Office Furni-
Company, signed by F. l.. Reed, secretary,
and accepted by T. B. Coffin, vice president
dh df the aefendahf aid f E & Reed Reed was the
July 10. 1893, $6,OSS and interest to SA2S;
drawn by the Indianapolis Cabinet Com
Pnddy on the wv o n De9E
July a. 1898, $S.336 and $61.12 interest:
drawn by the United States Office Furni-
Company and accepted by F. A. Coffin,
president.
The next batch of papers handed to the
Indianapolis Cabinet Company .on the In
dianapolis Office Furniture Company of
New York. They were as follows:
April 9, 1893, 5000 and interest; indorsed
secured by bonds and collaterals" in the
handwriting Of A. S. Reed.
April p. 1898, S,OSO and interest s1S0.95; in
May 10. 1898 $500 and 500 interest; in
dorsed as above.
June 16, 1888 s.. .sSe. 80; was indorsed paid,
and the Endorsement had subsequently been
erased. The witness said the draft had not
been paid.
June IS, 1893, 5000 and 1888 interest.
July 4, 1893, $,O53.4 40 and S10S99 interest.
July 13 1893, $5,219.50; accepted by John
NJ. Roberts. treasurer
July "a. 1883, $7,2724O and s53.34 interest;
| accepted by John NJ. Roberts, treasurer.
COFFINS PERSONAL NOTES.
Then the witness was handed another
batch of papers by Mr.. Kern, who said
they were the notes of T. A. Coffin,
amounting in the aggregate to 81, ,92799.
Mr.. Harris-Under what count of the in
dictment, may 1 ask the prosecution, are
these notes admissible?
Kern-We will show after a while that
the Indianapolis Cabinet Company received
credit at the bank for these notes.
Mr.. Miller-No count in the indictment
converted to the use of the cabinet COM
pany. The indictment simply charges an
intent to misapply the funds to the use of
He cited a case showing that ii was
necessary to show that the money was APP
propriatsd to the use of the indicted or
Judge Baker-What do you say to that
Mr.. Burke?
Mr., Burke-The indictment alleges con-
version to the use of the cabinet company.
Mr.. Miler-No, sir. 1t does not
Judge Baker-If ii Is a dispute between
counsel as to the avermentS of the indict-
ment it can be settled by the Indictment
The Indictment was handed to Judge
Baker, and after perusing it for few
minutes he said he did not think the fourth
count. upon which the objection was urged
was open to the objection. The count
averred the misappropriatOn of the money
with intent to apply ii to the use of the
cabinet company, and then averred that the
money thereby lost to the bank. 81
Think" said Judge Baker, that while the
IL. ict hot fe
certain to a common intent, and no advant-
age be taken of the uncertainty"
Mr.. Harris said IL was charged in the In.
dictment that the miSapplication of the
funds was upon drafts drawn by the Indi
annapolis Cabinet Company, and he could
not see wherein ii was crime for Mr.
Haughey, if, after the money had beer
taken from the bank, he accepted worth
| less notes or paper as security for il. If il
| was no crime for Haughey to do this the
| defendants could not be guilty as accesso
rieS
Mr.. Miller said in criminal practice 8
strict construction prevailed, and the aver
| ments must be within the letter of the
| statute. Judge Baker replied that taker
| in consideration with the other counts IN
| the Indictment, he thought the whole wa:
sufficiently certain. with some doubts.
! will overrule the objection" he answered
| The defendants counsel took exceptions Il
| the ruling of the court, and then the notes
| were read to the jury.
They were as follows:
March IL, 1892 for 3,790; April %, 1893, fol
| $3.50. with $l42.34 interest; June g. 1893, fol
| S5.9lS67 with interest amounting to $239 50
| been paid, and the body of two of them haC
hRoO ny A = Reed