The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-06
THE LINE OF DEFENSE
Mr. Winter oss-Qnestions Teller
Robinson in the Bank Case.
Attempt TO Show the Payment Of the
London Drafts-Early Adjourn
ment of Court.


day The examination IN chief of Louis J.
Robinson. receiving teller Of the bank. was
completed about the middle of the morn
ing session and his cross-examination begun
by Mr.. Winter. The defense Immediately
began a systematic crOss-examination re-
garding all the details Of the transactions
between the cabinet company and the bank.
The first step was to begin a line OF
cross-examinat0n to show the payment of
LONDON drafts. Then the defense turned TO
a line OF questioning to show that in adj
dition 10 the paper Of the cabinet COM
pany and it's various branches which had
been deposited in the bank, there was also
deposited a large amount of paper on Gus
toners OF the company which had been
collected by the bank Counsel for the
government objected to this testimony, on
the grounds that it had no bearing as an
offset 10 transactions which were alleged
to be Illegal. Judge Baker said. however.
that he would permit the defense to show
that there had been some honest transac-
lions. Then began a tedious examination
d the deposits made day by day and the
character of the paper deposited. This was
not completed till about half past 3 o'clock,
when the court adjourned The adjourn
e was had thus early to permit some Of
tie jurors to return to their homes.
The morning session OF the federal court
began yesterday with one lone spectator
seated upon the benches on the north side
Of the room. Louis J. Robinson continued
his description OF paper in the bank cred
tied 10 the cabinet company which had
rot beer specially referred TO in any count
in the Indictment. When the description Of
this paper was concluded Mr.. Winter asked
counsel for the government If they intend
ed putting this paper in evidence.
I'VE do not intend to put it in evidence,
but If you wish 1t you may put 1t in as
your evidence" replied Mr.. Burke.
Mr.. Winter objected 10 this, and the
court ruled that If the government did not
put the paper in evidence at that time the
defense might do so upon cross-examina-
ton.
The witness then read the paper consti-
tuting the cash items held in his drawer to
the credit of the cabinet company at the
time OF the failure. The total amount of
this paper was 1885. 40, and consisted Of
drafts for small amounts on various firms.
Inen the condition OF accounts between
the cabinet company and the Boston branch
was taken up, and II was shown that with
IL e~o Hiohlns AFTER the Incorporation OF
the company it had paper to the amount
<22.6O3-33 in the bank. At the end Of these
two months the books showed that the
total amount OF merchandise purchased by
the Boston branch from all sources amount
ed TO $7,755.22. and the merchandise on hand
amounted 10 A.so4.s6. 1t was also shown
that the Boston branch owed the cabinet
company at this time $5.63L42. The witness
testified that the bank had held notes of
John M. Roberts, father-in-law of +. A.
Coffin. amounting to $500. and that Rob
erts was considered by the bank to be SOL
vent at this time, but these notes were
exchanged for notes of the pillow
company. and these latter notes were after
wards charged TO profit and loss by the
order OF Haughey-
THE ROBERTS PAPER.
Mr.. Robinson testified that the total
amount of the Roberts paper placed in the
bank and afterwards taken out by other
paper was s1s. 154.9s. The bank never realized
anything upon any of paper which was
substituted for the Roberts paper. The
checks for the pay rolls OF July Is and p,
1893, were then read by the witness, show
ing that on the former date $3.50 and on
the latter date $1.7O were drawn from the
bank 70 meet the, pay roll The witness
then referred to the books OF the cabinet
company under date of Oct. 10. 1892, and
testified that on this date the company had
sold 20 o. NJ. Murphy, as trustee, a cretain
patent an consideration of ST. He then re-
ferred to the books Of the United States
Office Furniture Company. and testified
that on Dec. "A, 1892, this same patent had
been purchased by the United States COM
pany for 5000, which constituted the cap
ital stock of the company.
Mr.. Robinson was then passed TO cross
examination by Mr.. Winter 1t was 10
o'clock when the cross-examination was be-
gun by the defense. The first point TO which
the attention of the witness was called
was the paper of the American Desk and
Seating Company, OF Chicago, and District
Attorney Burke objected to the question,
but the court ruled that the defense might
put the paper in evidence under cross-ex-
animation and examine the witness upon II:
II was shown to consist of three notes OF
the aggregate value Of N,S02.SI. Mr.. Winter
then took up the testimony relating to the
checks drawn on the pay roll of dates OF
Tu1N X and % 1Sof IF was ahnvrn that on
the nrst date. when the company checked
out $3.50. IL had deposited paper 10 the
amount Of $1.551.5y. While AIR. Winter was
examining the witness as 10 the character
OF the paper deposited on this date he was
passed a note by f. A Coffin. and immedi-
ately asked If the bank had collected all
Of this paper. and the witness replied hat
IL had The amount drawn for the pay roll
Of July -, 1893, was then taken up. and IL
was show that on that day the company
Rad deposited 81. T5G.79 in paper. He said none
OF this was represented in the S75,O00 of
paper testified to, and all OF it had been
collected by the bank he said that since
the failure~Of the bank he had been en-
plOyed by the receiver, but his entire time
had been devoted to work in connection
with expert Hays
ONE DRAFT PAID
Mr.. Winter then directed his cross-ex-
animation 10 count No. 1. which charges
the misappiication OF s5.S02-S 81. the amount
Of a draft on the London branch under
date of March l. 1913. Mr.. Winter had the
witness trace this draft through the various
steps OF forwarding for collection and
showed that this draft had been paid at
maturity to the indianapolis bank through
It's New York correspondent During this
examination MI. Burk objected TO Mr..
Winter asking the witness what was meant
by an entry upon a book. but Mr.. Winter
retorted that the government had intro.
auced the witness as an expert and the de-
Tense thought he was competent to testify,
as an expert, what was meant by any en-
try. Judge Baker permitted the question
TO stand and the witness interpreted the
entry 20 mean that the draft cOncernipg
which the entry was made had been paid
In answer 70 questions by Mr.. Winter the
witness then said the cabinet company
made It's large deposits once a week. usual
~ when its representative came to the
bank TO draw money for the pay roll. lie
said a large number Of these deposits were
Robinson said he did not know whether
the aggregate amount of the paper on the
customers exceeded that on the branch con
Germs or not. The paper on customers was
usually shOrt-time paper.
Mr.. Winter then entered into a detailed
examination OF the deposits made by the
cabinet company 10 show that the aggre-
gate amount OF the paper on customers de-
posted was largely in excess OF the paper
on the branch concerns. The witness
turned In the books OF the bank 10 the
date OF Jan. ]. 1891, and testified that dur.
ing this month the company had deposited
paper aggregating S47, Then Mr.
HnHAE wAnfr -