The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-09
A FADED
New Evidence from New York Intro
duced by Government.

DuTlnB the noon recess MI. WlHteT, III
connection with Mr.. Robinson had gone
over all the notes, drafts and checks which
have been introduced in evidence prepare
tory to the cross-examination for the aft
ernoon session. The court was not con-
vened till 2:10 o'clock, when Mr.. Winter
asked the witness IL he had gone over all
the paper introduced in evidence, consti-
tuting the indebtedness of the cabinet COM
pany and it's branches to the bank. Mr..
Robinson said he had a statement showing
the face Of all this paper. and that it in
cluded the $3.50 deposited on July s and
held as cash items. and 81, 16S. II of Ameri-
can Desk and Seating Company paper. He
testified that he found 1925, 65S.26 of paper
on which the name of the cabinet COM
PAM appeared as drawer, maker or in
dorser, or which was Endorsed and Sc
cured by bonds. The total amount of the
paper which has been put In evidence was
1851, 297.6S. taking only the face value. This
statement which had been prepared was
then put in evidence.
The witness was then asked to state the
amount of paper marked secured by bonds
and collateral, and stated the amount to
be Sl93,302.3 81. The cross-examination was
then directed to count No. 81, which charges
the false entry of a credit of $50, 40S.76 on
March 80, 1892. Mr.. Robinson then went
through the course of entries made in the
the books of the bank on paper to be dis
counted, the first entry being made in the
"scratcher." and showed that it would be
entered on six books of the bank. He said
the transactions of the date of March 80,
1892, were correctly entered on the scratch
err" discount register, discount ledger and
individual journal. He said the transact
tions concerning the $4,000 of May 9, with
the exception of two items, were also cor
rectly entered on the same books. These
two items being short time paper went to
the remittance account, and after renewal
were entered correctly in the loan account.
He said the transactions of Jan. 6, amount
ing to S23,Co9.O4; Jan. 5, amounting to
S2,I23.10; Sept Y, amounting TO $13,2T3.C9,
were also correctly entered on the books.
This completed the cross-examination of
Mr.. Robinson. Having consumed the noon
recess in preparing the statement from
which he had last testified, he was excused,
and his redirect examination will be taken
up later.
Receiver Hawkins was then called for
cross-examination by the court. Mr.. Win
ter asked that the pages of the bills paya-
the entries brought out in the mornings
cross-examination of Mr.. Robinson. be put
In evidence. Mr.. Kern wanted the entire
book to be considered in evidence, saying
he doubted If it was a book of the cabinet
company. The lawyers for the defense said
they did not desire to cross-examine the
receiver at that time. Judge Baker told the
stenograDher TO let the record show that
the receiver had been called by the court
for the purpose of cross-examination by the
defense and that the defense announced that
they did not desire to cross-examine him.
to call their next witness, and John NJ.
TUFTS, from whom the cabinet company
purchased its New York branch. was called
70 the stand. AS upon the former trial, he
testified to the sale of his business TO the
Indianapolis Office Furniture Company, Oct.
l.. 1892. He testified as upon the former trial
Of the later sale to the bookkeeper. lie
also denied that the New York company
was indebted to the United States Office
the drafts upon the New York house by the
United Staes Office Furniture Company. and
denied any knowledge of the drafts. 1t de-
veloped by the production of an old and
dust-begrimed letter, that looked as if ii
might have been written a century ago,
that the witness had assumed to be acting
in endeavoring to sell the business after it's
sale to Clarke. The defense objected to
this evidence. claiming that it was imma-
terial what authority Tufts assumed to
have. The government sought to show that
Tufts had been acting under the direction
of Coffin and the court permitted the pros
letter head upon which the letter was writ
ten bore the name of John NJ. Tufts as gen.
eral manager of the Indianapolis Cabinet
Company, OF New York, and the witness
said that the business, to the outside world.
had been conducted under the name of the
was then read to the jury and the witness
was examined as TO what he meant by it
THE MUSTY LETTER.
The letter was dated Oct. 10. 1893, and was
addressed to the Derby & Kilmer Desk
Company. 1t is as follows:
II am now permitted to speak with au-
thority and knowledge. Mr.. +. A. Coffin
is still in New York for probably a week
or ten days longer. and if desired by you
I think an interview can be arranged at
your office In Beekman street or else
where. as may be desired, and / think that
you can make a very profitable bargain
for their goods and interests here. and
possibly also the Boston house. The notes
can be purchased at a large discount
(Which, of course, means the stock as
the Sommerville Desk Company. and may
be in Boston tomorrow and offer them the
chance to purchase notes. stock, etc, with
view of permanently establishing a New
York store. II viii be a pretty good snap
for them or for you If you choose to avail
yourself of it. 1t is worth your c0nsidera-
favorably. a telegram to me personally at
So Nassau will check n arrangements
interests OF the Ind. C. Co. here In event
of his making a deal with the S. D.. Co., he
may try TO sell a large part of the Ind. c..
Co. goods to some prominent dealer Cor
dealers) in Boston-at, say, % per cent. Tor
better discount for cash on the red list
(as inclosed) Present stock was originally
invoiced at 10 per cent. discount f. o. b. In
dianapolis. Clark purchased at an addi-
tionai 10 per cent.-for which he gave notes
notes may be purchased at still another
disc. % per cent. l think that you are
making a big mistake in not securing store
No. 80 Nassau street The difference in
rent between this and the Beekman-street
store is small when advertising location
is considered This is the place TO sell the
Derby Desk Will have TO apologize for
style OF my letter, as I have been so often
interrupted and hurried for time TO COM
plete it,"
letter meant the indianapolis Cabinet Com
pany. but Ii was an error; that they fire.
quently made an error of that kind. He
said the cabinet company had no interest
III the New York business, and that he had
no authority from Coffin to write the let
ter 10 the Boston people. He was asked
why he wanted to arrange an Interview
with Coffin. and said he did not know that
such an interview could be arranged.
Mr. Rurke-Now is IL not a fact Mr..