The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-05
He Tells the Story Of President
Hanks Transactions al the
Bank.
Testimony as 20 Other Than the
Burgess indebtedness Is
Allowed.
The Books Permitted 60 show Dealings
where the Papers Have Net Been
Produosd.

Merchants National bank. Of Great Falls.
from the time Of its incorporation down 10
the time 10 eloted lie doors was on the wit
moss stand all day yesterday in the United
States court In the trial OF Will Hanks for
misapplying the funds of that Institution
while lite presidents that il. With the creep
zion Of the time devoted 20 W. II. Burgess
the mining partner OF Hanks. A long time
was taken In Identifying the books OF she
bank. and then witness was made 10 90
over them and read all the Burgess entries.
This was done In tho face Of numerous and
iepsated objections on the part OF the de
fsnss. When one objection was ovsuulsd
the defense gene hliv allowed IL TO be un-
derstood that the same objection applied
10 all similar testimony. Az the eonrt was
very prompt In iM rulings and Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney Jers Leslie appeared
TO have his case we'll In hani and went right
10 the point very good progress vas made
during the day. when court ad-
iourned the prosecution had I'm
ished the examination of the
bookksepeT 80 10 the Burgess transactions,
and was Questioning him As to other evil
denoes OF Hanks Indebtedness to tho bank.
This oint was only gained after stTenu-
was a valuable one 20 ths prosecution. IL
Was 10 prove the intent of the defendant TO
| injuro and defrAud the bank, by showing
his inability TO pay back ths money be was
borrowing for the Burgess mining anaec-
tions, and his financial condition Rensr-
ally.
Bookkeeper Buns showed from the en-
] tries IN the books that on Sept B. 1892. when
a cheek for el70 was presented and paid
on the Bu eessAeoount, The hsm bad over
drawn 81 9lb The month following the
| oVsrdrnft had increased 90 t4OO1, and a
month later 10 g., 500. On Dee. p follow
ing the ovefdrafts had been reduced TO
/ 81, 205. so by giving note for S6,OOO This
note was fsdiscounted March 30 1898. for
| SIS 260. Both these notes we're In defend
ants hand writing. Col. Sanders started
an objection 20 this testimony, but Judge
Knowles told ths witness 30 20 on,
remarkina that be supposed the objection
was addressed more TO the district
attorney 20 the court. Col. Sanders suR-
gsstsd to the assistant prosecuting attorney
that u this was merely cumulative testl-
mony to chow that the 1rnl Dwell she bank
some $4,000, 10 was already shown by the
chsoks. and 10 was fact which the defense
did not mean to try TO contrOvert. Mt.
Leslie thanked Col. Sandei Tor ,he sug9es-
ton, but said be had osher reasons for
bringing In the testimony. Going rapidly
through the other check and note transac-
tiona witness came down TO the close OF the
bank. when Burgess x Co. owed sl1 l229S
IN notes and overdrafts.
This ended she testimony az 20 the Bur
CESS transactions, and the prosecution
started in 70 show Hanks indebtedness to
the bank bE reason of his connection with
other oonce ms. Witness testified that the
same day thst tbe first Burgess check was
presented she hrm Of Hanks Fullerton
had an overdraft at the bank Of So27245.
The defense here began hard fight against
allowing snv testimony to 90 in showing
the Indebtedness Of Hanks a Fullerton to
the bank. Col. Sanders argued that 10 was
necessary that the ind ictmSnt contains only
such allegations az would plsce the defend
ant In position TO know the methods on
which the prosecution relied 90 show how
! the alleged offense was committed. If the
/ prosecution relied in this case on the in
dsbtednsss OF Hanks q Fullerton IL should
| have been put in the indictment. Judge
/ Knowles held that when 10 came down to
/ the question Of latent. he doubted whether
| 10 was necessary 90 set out all the facts by
/ which 10 Was expected TO prove the intent.
/ In a case where fraud Was charged 10 vas
competent 10 show other acts az Indicating
intent. IL was competent TO show Hanks
financial condition and what was his Gbil-
/ ity TO paw back TO the bank the money he
used. He overruled the objection and an
exception was taken.
Witness then west on 10 say that the day
I BarRess y Co. wsRt on the books OF the
against Hanks a Fullerton. On July 3.
1893. Hanks a Fullerton owed by ossrdraft
| $5,673 80 and 81 900 on a note. Tie court
wOald NOT let ths prosecution show any
thing In regard 20 Hanks d Fullerton sub
seauent TO the tins OF Burgess 4 Co.'S
1 ansactiOns with the bank. At the same
time Will Hanks individual aceount
showed an ovsrdTAft of sc. 20225. On Jan.
H. 1891, a note for $3.50 by A. w. Paul,
with VIII Hanks for surety. was put IN
bank. Then testimony was offered as to
notes in possession Of the defendant aud
not Of the bank. TO shOw shat tWo fer e.. 800
each were renewed without charging inter
sst Notice had been served on Hanks to
D oduoe these notes. The defense claimed
that the notice was not sufficient
and that 10 Was wholly immAteriAi
whether tue notes were paid by renewal
or cash. Judge Knowles said be was not
certain but that in criminal cases ID was
unfair 10 require the defendant 60 produce
evidence against himself. The bank
books, however. could be Introduced In evil
depcs Itvaa no, exactly secondary evil
dsncs. IL vas the records Of the bank.
The defense took an exception 10 the ruling
of the court.
The bookkespsr then told from the books
that on March 10, 1892, Hanks put In
note for g. 600 for ninety daVa IL was re-
neved Dec. by smother $1,000 note of
date jane &. Ga Dec. - this was paid in
part By a g., 300 note Of W. ID. Benson, en-
dorsed By viii Hanks. This Benson note
was paid by renewal Nay p. 1893
Al this point court adjourned until this
morning.
Use Montana Peerless BaNinE Powder