The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-08
REPLACING THE MONEY.
Judge Baker Rules on This Feature
of the Evidence.

VI tnc
The court convened promptly at 8 o'clock,
with Mr.. Robinson still on the stand, under
cross-examination by Mr.. Winter. The first
question asked vas a request from Mr..
Winter that the witness turn to the ac-
count of the cabinet company with the
bank on Feb. 2s. 1898, and tell the condition
of the account on that day. The witness
said on that day the account of the cab
met company was overdrawn ~S5.212.19. He
was then asked TO state the condition Of
the account on July 10. 1898, and said the
company had a credit balance of $134.15. Mr..
Winter then asked If this did not show a
reduction of S5,346.34 in the indebtedness.
exclusive Of the notes put in. Mr.. Burke
objected to the question on the grounds
that it was asking for the opinion of the
witness. Judge Baker overruled the objec-
ton, however. saying hat the witness was
testifying as an expert, and had shown that
he knew more about bookkeeping and bank
ing han the court or the jury. The wit
ness said the books did show such a reduc-
ton. The cross-examination was then taken
up at the point where ii had been dropped
at the time of the adjournment Saturday
afternoon. Just prior TO the adjournment
the witness had testified to the aggregate
amount of deposits between March l and
July IL, 1893. The witness yesterday morn
ing took up the checks drawn during this
time and gave their amounts by months,
as follows: March, $54, 81; April, $685.
69S. II; May, $G9. SPA; June, $0,371.S9; July.
s, 2J6.43, making a total of checks drawn
during the period amounting to $242, I06.0S.
The witness was then asked to go through
these checks and state which ones were
given by the cabinet company to the bank
TO take up notes and returned drafts. After
the computation had been made, he said
the total amount of these checks was Sl15,-
1854. IN addition to the checks, he said,
there were also a number or checks for
small amounts payable to the bank for in
terest charges on the paper of the cabinet
company. He was then asked to give the
amount of deposits from July IL TO the date
OF the suspension of the bank. The deposits
amounted to $S,371.63, and the checks for
the same period were IS, 10.
Mr.. Winter then directed his attention
to count No. 2 of the indictment. This count
charges the misapplication of sS.626.50 on
Feb. 20, 1893. which was the date of a Lon
don draft for that amount.
Mr.. Winter was tracing the course OF
and collection for the purpose of showing
that no money was lost to the bank through
this transaction. Mr.. Burke objected to
this line of cross-examination. He said
they had shown the deposit of this money
and credit received upon 1t by the cabinet
company under the count charging misap-
the evidence sought by the c-ross-examina-
ton was legitimate defense, it should be in
troduced by the defense under direct ex-
animation.
Judge Baker overruled the objection, now
ever. He said: ut certainly makes no diff
ference whatever what was lone with the
money or whether 1t was afterwards re-
placed or not If, in the first instance, 1t was
misapplied wilfully and with the intent to
defraqd the association: The offense would
then have been complete in itself and the
fact that the money was subsequently paid
back would not purge of the crime. But
1t Is proper to show, and / have been al
lowing this somewhat lengthy and ta6iolS
cross-examination upon the question of in
tent. 1t is not for me 10 say how much
weight the subsequent ~refunding of the
money should have as going to prove that
the original intent had not been to defraud
the association
Mr.. Burke said he had not questioned the
competence OF the evidence, but had ques-
toned whether 1t was legitimate cross-ex-
animation.
dence upon which, If not rebutted, you are
entitled TO ask the jury to find a willful
misapplication of the funds of the bank
with intent to defraud the association. On
cross-examination the defense has a right,
not only to repel your facts but introduce
other and new facts TO explain them away.
found that the amount of IL had been sub
sequently repaid to the bank. The Cross
No. 3, which charges the misapplication of
1913 on Dec. q, 1892. On that day a. note
of that amount by the London branch was
deposited in the bank TO the credit of the
cabinet company and Chicago exchange for
the amount issued to the cabinet company.
The same process OF tracing this draft was
gone through with, and ii was shown that
the money was not repaid.
The INSTRUMENTATION was then directed
to count No. 4, which charges the misappli-
cation of S,272.29 on May 20, 1893, on which
day that amount wa checked out by the
cabinet company. 1t was shown that the
total deposits on that day and a few days
following were Sc, 1874. 10, which reduced the
overdraft 10 a little over $500.
Then count No. 8. which charges the mis-
application of S,co6 on Dec. II, 1892. was
taken up. 1t was shown that on that day
there was deposited by the cabinet company
paper on it's customers amounting to 1898. q,
and two days later a London draft for s4,-
1S1. This draft was traced as the former
ones had been, and II was shown TO have
traversed the same circle and was finally
paid TO the bank. OF the money drawn
out on hat day s2,s5 was for the pay roll
of the company.