The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-11-15
THE HAGUE CASE.
EXPERT TESTIMONY INTRODUCED
YESTERDAY.
Grand Jury Reports Several Indict-
ments-POuItry Thieves Sentenced
-General News Notes.

as an expert to testify as to his sigma
lures on the eight notes in evidence.
An objection was made by the defense
and he was Withdrawn till o'clock in
order to permit counsel to produce
authorities on the question.
James Ericsson was next called. He
was once president of the Nephi bank
in the early part of 1894 When the de-
falcation Of defendant was discovered
he had a conversation with him. De-
PENDANT had admitted taking the
money of the bank, and had said, eff
1 ever needed friend 1 need him
now and witness replied. Il suppose
You do Defendant had told witness
that he had kept an account of the
money he had taken in a little book
which at that time was in his desk in
Salt Lake city. Witness had told the
defendant that he wanted him to turn
all his property over to the bank and
he had replied that he would do SO
and had done SO day or two after
wards. Mr.. Ericsson testified that the
writing on the notes and the entries
Of them in the balance book was Mr..
Hagues writing.
On cross examination, he teStlf1ed
that Mr.. Hague had said that he was
to blame, and that Charles l.. Hyde,
clerk in the bank, was not an inter-
ested party. but had not said that no
one except himself was connected with
the shortage. Mr.. Rood was recalled
and, after arguments for and against
the admissibility of expert evidence on
the writing, Judge Merritt permitted
him to testify. Mr.. Rood testified that,
in his judgment, the writing in the
body of the notes and the signatures
on the notes was in the handwriting
of Alma Hague. The evidence was clear
er on six of the notes than on the other
two. He did not know the handwrit-
ing of Mr.. Hague, but on the sup
position that Mr.. Hague wrote the
entries in the book and the body of the
notes, the sigma lures were also his.
The entries in the balance book, the
body of the notes, the signatures, the
| slips attached to the notes and the en-
dorsement of the Ingram Bros. note
! wv. |. Brown" were all written by the
same person.
Mr.. Rood was cross-examined at
great length by Judge Henderson and
pointed out the similarities between
| different signatures on the notes and
! the same names written on the Slip
accompanying the notes, upon which
| he based his testimony as 10 the writ
Ing beIHS UONe Dy the same person.
/ The jurors also examined the resem-
blances which he pointed out. He
could not say unqualifiedly, that in his
judgment as an expert, the signatures
on the Keith and Christensen note 1.-TWO
of those introduced) were written by
the same person as the others.
J. H. Knauss, of Ogden, testified that
he had been employed by United States
Attorney Judd in behalf of the United
tot 10 tr,n 1A nT-r- 81 4l14
! Nephi bank. His opinion was that the
same hand wrote the signatures to the
notes that wrote tho body OF the notes.
the credit slip and the entries in the
balance book, except note signed by
Price Bros. In regard to this note he
had some doubt.
Mr.. Knauss also explained the entry
of Ingram B. in the balance book,
which showed that on the Sd of Janu-
airy, 1894, the Ingram note of S575 was
discounted, and that Ingram B, owed
the bank S575. The effects of the entry
would be to reduce the cash that much
and stood in the place of that much
cash. If the cash had not been taken
out the cash would have been $5T5 over
at the end of the days business. The
book showed that the cash did balance
except for an error which he explained
On cross-eXamination he testified
that he had been engaged on the books
of the bank for about six months. He
had examined the notes introduced at
this trial once in Nephi and had spent
one or two hours in examining them
The entry, Ingram B. 1916 $575. under
date of January Sd, 1894, on the bal
ance book of the Nephi bank, did not
necessarily mean that Ingram Bros
had borrowed any money of the bank
1t might mean that the entry had
been made of a time bill of exchange
Taking the entry and the note to-
gether the entry meant that w. L
Brown, the endorser, sold the ingram
B. note 10 the bank. The indictment
charges that the entry was made tt
deceive, in that it represented money
loaned to Ingram Brothers when il
fact no money had been loaned to In
gram Brothers.
On redirect he testified that taking
the entry alone meant that ingram
Bros. on that date owed the bank $5l5
The endorsement of w. l. Brown OF
= the Ingram note was also, in the opin
ion of witness, written by the SANE
person who wrote the signatures on tn
) other notes.
w. I. Brown was called. He hat
been a director of the Nephi bank il
Had not endorsed the Ingram Bros
note.
, Mr. Marshall-Is the signature a sim
: ulation of your handwriting?
2 Mr.. Brown-No, [ hardly think It Is
Mr.. Marshall-Mr. Brown, did yol
ever have a conversation with Mr.
! Hague in regard to loan to ingram
Bros. in the spring of 1893?
Mr.. Brownies.
Mr.. Marshall-What was it?
/ Objected to and the question wa
5 withdrawn.
TIE witness knew of no other w I
/ Brown than himself in the vicinit.
where he lived and had heard of non
I in the territory.
other Court Business.
The grand jury came in and reporte
, having found four indictments unde
| the laws of the territory and on
, under the laws of the United States
, One of the indictments under the law
D Of the territory is against Fred T
t Smith, of Spanish Fork, charging libe
In the case of Hans S. Nelson V!
John Henneger ct. al, judgment b
default and decree Of foreclosure fo
$500, and $50. costs.
David Eccles has commenced SUI
against Provo Lumber Manufacturer
and Building company, j. c. Graham
William Paxman and J. W. Bean an
the executors of the estate of A. {
Smoot and John w. Turner. both d.
ceased. to recover $500 with interes
at the rate of 10 per cent per annul