The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-12
OF A STRAW VARIETY.
Concluded from First Page,

Concluded from First Page.S
the defense Judge Baker said he under
stood il TO be the theory Of the government
that the cabinet company had passed lot
of worthless paper through the bank, oo-
tanning upon ii a nominal credit, and then
Haughey, knowing the paper represented
no value, paid out money to the cabinet
company on this credit. He did not think
the case of the government rested upon any
particular draft, but upon chain or them;
The objection of the defense was oveTruiIea
and exceptions taken by the defense Judge
Baker said he thought every transaction be
tween Haughey and the defendants would
be admissible in evidence.
The first note read was one TO the caDl-
net company by the Chicago concern dated
March 3, 1898, for $4S022 and interest. MT.
Robinson was asked whether he knew that
| the desk and seating company had collected
| the note after it had been put into the
| bank. This was Immediately objected TO on
| the score of incompetency, but the once
ton was overruled, and the witness an
swered that he had no knowledge save what
! he could get from the Endorsement. he was
| then asked if III was sent to Chicago for
collection, and answered that II was ana
! was sent back Endorsed. Objections were
| raised TO the witness stating what the IN
| dorsement was, but were overruled, and he
said il was indorsed unpaid. The other
notes were as follows:
| Furniture Company for $,029S; April /.
| 1893, 10 the indianapolis Cabinet Company
for $780, April 20, 1888 to the CABINET COM
pany for Sl,733.14. There was also one draft
| on the desk and seating company for 3d.
1923 dated July il, 1893.
| He was next handed batch or notes OF
| the Indianapolis Cabinet Company ana one
| draft accepted by ii. The ADMISSION or
| these In evidence was also obJected 70 by
| The draft was one drawn by the lndlanap-
oils Veneer and Panel Company on the
/ cabinet company and accepted by II 1t
| was dated April 10, 1885, and was for $780,
| with $ll94S interest.
Mr.. Harris objected to the introduction OF
| this draft because it was not included in
| the general count nor any speclhc count
in which it was described so that the de-
PENDANTS might know that they will be
| called upon to defend against it. He said
the prosecution could not introduce every
thing under an omnibus count mt 9; Ju1s log
handed him. He asked If there was
| special count under which II was intro,
dueed and was told that 1t was intrq qaria
under the general count. MI Harris
| argued that the general count alleged no
date and was specific in nothing. Judge
II think the general count should be at
tackled on motion to quash or stand sep
judgment. You failed to move TO quash
and l am going TO try this case and you
can have your exceptions. L will hear you
on a motion in arrest of judgment, but IL
| there be single count on which the judg-
| ment can be sustained ii will be overrued.
think admissable aI under the general count
and | think count II is broad enough to
admit this evidence. 1 am not going to al
low these defendants to be acquitted by
| objections to evidence because the indict-
| ment is not specific when advantage might
have been taken of that at It'll, time when II
| could have been corrected. The objection
| Is overruled." The defendants counsel ex-
| cepted to the ruling.
| The witness then read draft drawn by
the Indianapolis Veneer and PANEL Com
pany on the cabinet company and accept
ed by 1t. The draft was dated April 10. 1888
and was for 4,SGO, with $119.4S interest
Then notes of the cabinet company to the
bank as follows were read: April 1S 1893
for $500 and sS3 % o. interest et July 4 1893
| 1885, for $6137.33, with $165.W interest. The
notes of the indianapolis Veneer and Pan,
| of them was So, 422.93 The most of them
| were written in the handwriting of A. S
Reed and the greater part of them signed
| by John NJ. Roberts, secretary OF the COM
THE LONDON PAPER.
Then the paper of the indianapolis Desk
Company, of London, England, was hand
! ed to the witness. He said the total amount
of the paper of this company in the bank a
the time of the failure was $4OS37H This
paper was also objected to- the objection
to it being that in the paper the amount:
were stated in pounds sterling, while II
| the Indictment ii was stated in dollars anC
| cents. Judge Baker asked If Congress haC
not fixed the value in United States money
OF pound sterling, and was answered by
Mr.. Miller, who said il had in regard t
customs transactions only The objection
was overruled and the paper was read.
was all drawn upon the London company
by the cabinet company, and was as fol
lows: July. IS, 1893. $40, for which tn,
cabinet company was credited on the books
with Si,130; May~1S 1885, f475 sterling, fo
which the company was credited with %,
1929; May -, 1893, n,775 sterling. 70
which the company was credited with IS.
S56.5S; April 20, 1893, $3.50 sterling, for which
the company was credited with $2,746. IS
| April s, 1893, f2,022 sterling, for which tn
company was credited with s100S964; Jul,
is. 1898, H,425 sterling, for which the com
| pany was credited with S,065.55; June Is
| 1898. for which the company was creditet
! with $5,457.49. The witness testified tina
the most OF these drafts had been accept
| ed by K. a. Coffin, president of the com
pany, and that Coffin was in this city a
| the time.
1t was 1890 o'clock when this point wa
reached, and the court adjourned till
| o'clock.