The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-05

charges the misapp1ication Of S,525 which
was drawn from the bank in two checks
Of the cabinet company of that date. Mr..
Robinson testified that on the day preceding
the account of the cabinet company was
overdrawn TO the amount of ~s2,274.9l. and
a deposit Of s.. sss.is This deposit consist
ed Of a draft on Richmond for that amount
after deducting the discount. This draft
newals till paper in renewal OF 1t was
found still IN the hands OF the receiver as
a part of the assets Of the bank. Then
evidence was taken up relating to the
transactions Of the date OF June IL. 1893.
II was shown that on the day preceding
p 1ais d ass t over sSsSunt s q ths e ena on s sane
II the company credited with a deposit Of
S.2s5.6O. and ON this same day it was charged
out on that day on checks OF the com-
pany. Mr.. Robinson's attention was then
called to the transactions of the date OF
transactions related 20 no specific count, but
was introduced as OF general application.
p pan S0 WAS owe aGe0un' s 81 sne ca aDd on cG tine
with a deposit of si5.ia15s. This deposit was
tn aG9 for ara s7as41.s S1e and On on aee ON f tse Boston, aeon
branch for T.29i-s7. Both these drafts were
then traced down through the books TIL
renewal Of them had finally come into the
hands of the receiver as a part of the assets
OF OF the the D Tnfts e ca bins cO company. the Of p Sew
-
which the evidence in the former trial
showed never to have had an actual ex-
Under the same general order of proof
the government then introduced evidence OF
the transactions under the date OF Dec. IL,
1892. On the day the account of the cabinet
company was overdrawn S,349.66 and on the
same day the company had a credit upon
02267. This was by a London draft depos-
lied on that day.. and this draft was traced
through its various renewals till the re-
newal paper given for 1t became a part OF
the assets of the bank in the hands of the
receiver. On April Is, 1898, the account of
the company was overdrawn s7,66s.5 and
on the following day the cabinet company
was credited with a deposit of $3.50. IS, the
deposit being a London draft of that
amount after the deduction Of the discount.
On the same day the company also checked
out OF the bank s2,673.
The transaction Of March IL. 1892, was
then taken up, and 1t was shown that on
the day preceding the account OF the cabi-
net company had been overdrawn to the
amount Of So los. os and then on March u
$l4,0S. This deposit consisted Of three
notes, one OF which was never renewed nor
newals. but all came TO the same point in
the end-the hands of Receiver Hawkins.
by whom they are held as assets of the
bank. Then the tranactions OF the date of
On the preceding day the account of the
cabinet company was overdrawn TO the sum
Il VI vAVyOLVscO. vi tlC lJtu tHC COllpduy was
credited with deposits to the amount Of
SIS, 1888. OF this credit S14,9O7.3S consisted
of drafts on the Richmond branch, Herman
States once Furniture Company. These
drafts, which were deposited to wipe out an
Aug q. when nene t fssrie Wer rs t tasa i' eut , u u a
check OF the cabinet company, which re-
suited In causing another overdraft of $13,-
1871. Then on this last day the cabinet
company received a credit for the deposit
OF S.35S.N In paper. and this paper traced In
its meanderings through the bank till 1t
Mr.. Robinson testified that a bank might
carry such paper as cash items for a few
days provided 1t knew the drafts to be
but under no circumstances should they
be carried as cash items for the length Of
time they were carried by the Indianapolis
National Bank.
The government then showed the date of
Incorporation of each of the various
branches and showed the amount of paper
| Of each which found its way into the bank,
and upon which the cabinet company had
received credit.
| of evidence under counts Nos. SO and 40,
der date Of May .. 1898. it was at this
cunulated in the drawer of Mr.. Robinson
and were being held as cash items. Mr..
Robinson Re- said these drafts It's, had been accum,
the government sought to show the value
Of a pound sterling by Mr.. Robinson to
rency of drafts drawn by the cabinet COM
pany on the London branch. The defense
objected TO the evidence On the ground
that there had been no examina ton to
SHOW that the witness was competent to
testify ON that subject. The objection.
however, was overruled by the court.
The government then directed it's evil
dence to count No. 81, which charges q
false entry OF $40. $50. IS on the books of
the bank under date of March 80, 1892, and
showed the credit Of this amount to the
cabinet company's account on that day.
The government then undertook to show
the false entries on the individual journal
of the bank, and the defense objected to
the evidence on the grounds that there were
no in the indictment of any false
entries on the journal. The objection was
promptly overruled by the court. The same
| objection was made by the defense and
overruled when the government undertook
to show the false entries upon the scratch
err"
Mr.. Robinson then took up all the paper
upon which the cabinet company had re
ceived credit which had not come up under
the several counts. He took the paper
| piece by piece and read to the jury the
name Of the maker and the amount Of the
| paper, giving a general description Of ii.
He traced each piece down to the time
Of the failure and testified that none of il
lac been paid. The paper included paper of
the indianapolis Veneer and Panel Com
pany to the amount of $1,000 and notes
Of the indianapolis Plow Company to the
amount of 10000. OF this amount ST.. 800
was traced back to the indebtedness of the
Unthank Plow Company, which was the
predecessor OF the indianapolis Plow Com