The weekly tribune., 1894-05-11
THE HANKS CASE.
NJ. $. Burns of Great Falls, the Bookkeeper
ofthe Defunct Bank, on the Stand.

VI. >. Burns of Great Falls, the BOOkkeeper
ofths Defunct Bank. on the Stand.
HELENA, May Especial to The
TRIBUNE. M. S. Burns, who was book
keeper in the Merchants National bank
of Great Falls from the time of it's in.
corporation to the time it closed it's
doors, was on the stand nearly all day in
the Hanks trial for misapplying the
funds of that institution while its presi-
dent When court adjourned the prose
cution had finished the examination of
the bookkeeper as to the Burgess trans.
actions and was questioning him as to
other evidences of Hanks indebtedness
to the bank. 1t was to prove the intent
Of the defendant to injure and defraud
the bank by showing his inability to pay
back the money he was borrowing for
the Burgess mining transactions and his
financial condition generally. Burns
showed from the entries in the books
that on Sept. 8, 1892, when check
for S170 was presented and paid on
the Burgess act, the firm had overdrawn
S1,915; the month following the over
draft had increased to S4,O07; and
month later to $500. On December %,
following, the overdraft had been re-
duced to Sl,205.80 by giving note for
$1,000. This note was rediscounted
March 80, 1893, for $500. Both these
notes we're in defendants handwriting.
Col Sanders suggested to the assistant
prosecuting attorney, j. b. Leslie, that
II this was merely communicative testi-
mony to show that the firm owed the
bank some $4,000, it was already shown
by the checks, and it was a fact which
the defense did not mean to try to con-
trovert. The prosecution proposed to 60
on in its own way. Going rapidly through
the other checks and note transactions
witness came down to the close
Of the bank when Burgess e. Co.
owed $17 ,122.3 in notes and overdrafts
The prosecution now started in to show
Hanks indebtedness to the bank by
reason of his connection with other con-
Germs. Witness testified that the same
day that the first Burgess check was
presented the firm of Hanks & Fullerton
had an overdraft at the bank of$8, ,272.45.
The defense made half fight against
the testimony to show the indebtedness
Of Hanks & Fullerton to the bank.
Judge Knowles held that when it came
down to the question Of intent he
doubted whether it was necessary to set
out all the facts by which it was ex-
pected to prove the intent. In a case
where fraud was charged it was CON-
petent to show other acts as indicating
intent. 1t was competent to show
Hanks financial condition and what
was his ability to pay back to
the bank the money he used.
He overuled the objection. Witness
said the day Burgess e. Co. went on the
books Of the bank, overdrafts for $8,272.-
As were charged against Hanks 4 Fuller
ton. On July 3, 1893, their overdraft
was S5,673, and notes $4,000. At the
same time Will Hanks individual ac-
counts showed an overdraft Of S6,2O2.25.
Testimony was offered as to the notes in
possession Of the defendant, Hanks.
Notice had been served on Hanks to
produce these notes. Judge Knowles
SAID he was not certain but that in GRIM
inal cases it was unfair to require the
defendant to produce evidence against
himself the bank books, however, could
be introduced. The bookkeeper then told
from the books that on March 10, 1892,
Hanks put in note for 5000 for ninety
days. 1t was renewed December 8. by
another 5000 note OF the date OF June
6. On December 90, this was paid IN
part by $500 note of w. d. Benson,
endorsed by Will Hanks. This Benson
note was paid by renewal May %, 1893.
At this point court adjourned.