The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-06

x,
sourf said that IL vas proper question.
and tbs witness said that he had received
sav.uO worth Of credit In New York,
which had the same value q, the face Of
tns Cheek Continuing, Mr.. Fuhrman
said that before Krug "a. cstv treasurer
ne had not borrowed money Of him. After
sae sio.uo vas borrowed. a. late - July,
Asas: ne had borrowed money in different
smaller sums Said he:
think made . mistake nov In Dor
sosing the money from Krug ~ city
treasurer. If / had known then that there
Vas penalty for doing 20 would not
nsse borrowed IT, l thought ] had the
same rights as the banks had"
Mr.. Mcbride then gave the witness thrss
cheeks given by Krug 70 Fuhrman. trans
iefsing to the latter several thousand dol
lars from the treasurer. and asks6 if Their
vers not evidences Of other loans Of city
money. The answer vas In the negative,
the witness saying that they we're checks
given BY Krug in payment for war; ants
redeemed. not deposited - security.
The witness vas next cross-exsmined a
to Why he had bssn unwilling 70 allow the
grand Jury TO see his books when they
were ordered brought up by his book
Keeper for inspertion. He replied that
there was no truth In the story. Suddenly
dropping this subject Mr.. Mcbride asked
whether by taking the New York exchange
instead OF cash the witness did not make
about $i3 prof. on the 81. coo loan, profit
unauthorized by law. The court sustained
On objection TO the question on the ground
that IL Vas another matter from the one
under investigation. Then for nearly an
hour Mr.. Mcbride tried to &c. the witness
TO name the exact amount Of money he
had borrowed during Krug's term of oifice.
There was . running fire of objections 10
the manner in which tho cross-examina-
ton was conducted. bat Judge Humes
wanted to see Just what was in the case
and ruled against Mr.. Hughes. Finally
Mr.. Thurman admitted that in
oil he had probably drawn 5000
at different times. but that the
largest amount he ever owed the city
treasury At one time was $4,000 and at
times less than half that was due from
him. When Krus left town the latter was
his creditor for $4,000. all Of which Was
soon after repaid 90 the city.
The cross-examination was next a. to
the visit Mr.. Thurman had made to the
corporation counsei's offics TO see about
wanted to get an admission that the Wit.
ness knew. after hearing the attorneys
opinion, that he was doing an unlawful
act in borrowing the money. ending by
asking the witness u be had not worked .
little scheme to get around the technical.
ity. Mr.. Hughes objected TO the language
OF the question as grossly misleading and
this raised . laugh In the court The
- ~ltz 4 A. ALL ~
that he got the money, but did not WORK
"any scheme"
Mr.. Hughes examined the witness again
on the subject OF his making good more
than his share OF Krug's shortage ~
bondsman. The examination was soon
stopped. however. by Judge Humes say
ing that the fact that the city was Ieim-
hursed would not have any effect on tho
case. for the city had no power to bind the
state In the case. Just as Thurman vas
asked to step down from the stand Mr..
Mcbride asked him whether he would
object to his account books being used In
rebuttai Of his testimony. but before he
could answer Mr.. Hughes fastened to In
form the prosecution that he was the man
to ask about the matter. and that ended
the defendants testimony.
q. W. Ferris. the city comptroller Of tho
Harry White administration. testified to
the sale of the water bonds and thu buying
Of the warrants by Mr.. Thurman, corrobo-
rating the latssr's testimony in all re-
spects. ii. w. Miller. a, that time city
clerk, corroborated Mr.. Thurman rs to the
sale of tho warrants. q. w. Hall. who
signed the warrants as acting mayor, told
the same story. He did not remember
Ia 81 A. q
his attorney, Mr.. Hughes. advised him not
to buy the warrants. y. w. Price. one
OF the men who had bought the warrants
on Mr.. Fuhrmsn's guarantee, testified ~
to the fact, but was not allowed TO say that
Mr. Thurman made no profit on the trans
action. Mr.. Hughes announced to the
court that under its ruling no could not
introduce the evidence Of other warrant
buyers.
lie then called Julius Driscoll, an
elderly gentlemen with long. gray
beard, who had known Mr.. Thurman at
Fremont, Neb., and Seattle for twenty
three years or more. The witness had
held various offices at Fremont and in an
official capacity had hsd dealings with
him. He had good reputation and Was
engaged in the dry goods business. This
witness was crossexamined at great
length. George II. Hebron. of the Guar
aptee Loan and Trust Company. said that
Mr.. Thurman s reputation previous to the
com omission OF the alleged offense. was
good. Edward Blewstt. Who had known
Mr. Thurman at Fremont for about
twenty years and in Seattle for several.
paid he had . good reputation. +. +.
Shelby had known him the same length Of
time aud knew that no had good repu-
tation. A. h. Stewart, A. A. Denny. Ii.
c. Henry and +. A. Wing all testified to
Mr.. Fuhrmsn's good reputation in Seattle.
Mr.. Hughes then said that he thought
that . good reputation had been su.-
fcientiy well proven and that the defense
would rest Its case. Mr.. Miller said that
the state would like to call F., o. Graves in
r~buttal and an intermlssion OF half an
hour was taken, but when the jury earae
in again Mr.. Miller said that the absent
witness would not be called and also rested.
Mr.. Miller then opened the argument
for the state in speech Of about oae hoar.
He ridicued the idea that Mr. Thurman
would 90 down in his own pocket 20 Pay
the salaries Of city employees and take any
risks Of no, getting his money back. Tae
idea that in buying the warrants he Was
thinking OF anything else than making
money vas also dwelt upon As out of all
keeping with Mr.. Fuhrman's reputation.
lie could not pose as friend in need to
the city and escape punishment on that
ground. Mr.. Miller also urged the jury
not TO aequit the defendant merely because
-