The morning call., 1895-02-16

and his sudden recovery to a most vivid
remembrance of all the little details of the
check transaction, were explained by the
charge that public opinion had run so
high regarding the affairs of the bank as to
make Waterhouse fear the consequences to
himself should ne have told such story
at the time. 'He was told,' said Liver
nash, "that / could prove he signed those
checks, and then, as he stood between the
fear of the penitentiary Tor perjury on the
one side and a clear memory on the other,
he Immediately remembered most WV
idly"
AS to the transactions involving the
checks Livernash contended that, consid-
ering the peculiar circumstances under
which they were deposited, they were good
assets. DR.. Mcdonald, he said, for oner
could have paid his check at any time. AS
to the others, their checks were good in
that they were in small checks, each well
within the ability of the maker to pay,
and, in the aggregate, representing a sum
which the bank could realize at any time.
The prosecution, Livernash said, had been
singularly weak in its attempt to connect
the defendant with the transaction. They
had tried to do SO simply because he
was an officer Of the bank and he ought to
have known. The fact was quite probable
that Frank V. Mcdonald had applied to
Waterhouse to deposit his checks. The
fortunes of Waterhouse. and the others
were so wrapped up in the success of the
bank that it was but right they. should
have lent their credit to tide it over a
period of uncertainty. Besides, the checks
were just as good as SO much gold, and the
prosecution could have had no objection
to the transaction had gold coin been put
in instead. And there had been no
disposition to use the checks, for If SO
where was the use of depositing them in
small checks. ANY one of these checks
could have been cashed at once even though
the entire sum might not have been imme
diately secured. And if there had been
any disposition 10 crime where was the use
OF depositing the checks at all? The books
might have easily been made to show sol
yency had there been any criminal intent.
Instead the books showed the actual trans
action and there was no attempt at con-
cealment. What had been done was no
more Or less than what any business house
will do when by force of circumstances it
is suddenly left perfectly solvent but with
out sufficient cash on hand for its needs.
business house will then go to its friends
and borrow their credit until by selling
some of its wares it can raise money once
more This was precisely what the bank
had done.
AS to the attestation of the bank state
ment Livernash renewed the contention he
made before opening his testimony in
defense-that there had been no actual
oath administered; he agreed with Peix-
otto that infofmality does not inyalidate
the oath, but informality and no oath at
all We're two different things; not that
Mcdonald did not intend to swear to the
statement; if Tharp had come to him he
would have taken the oath unquestionably,
but he did not do SO; there could be no
man upon the jury who was absolutely
certain there had been an oath and so there
must be reasonable doubt in the mind of
each one. In conclusion Livernash summed
up his case by advancing these points:
There had been no criminal intent and
there had been no criminality; there had
been no oath administered, and so
there could be no perjury. as to
his sanity, Livernash claimed, it had been
shown by the evidence to be but an I'M
certainty, and his questionable transac-
tions had origin in bad head, not bad
heart, in misjudgment, not in criminality
1t was the misfortune of his life, with an
intellect no better than a fools, that he
was placed in position of power where he
wandered around in a maze of mistakes