The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-08

embezzlement charge, but Livernash oh.
jected. Barnes wished to show a close
relation between the interests of the wifi.
ness and those of the defendant. but tbs
court sustained the objection.
In the afternoon A. F. Johns. broker
was placed upon the stand by the defense
He saw A. L. Jenkins carry the bank state
ment to the Office of Notary Tharp and re.
turn with it.. After being examined bv
the McDonalds the document was sent ~
the office of the Commissioners.
j. b. Carter was recalled. He mad been
employed in the Pacific Bank in the "a.
paclty OF assistant paving teller and as
slstant accountant. Since 1884 he had
been connected with the bank.
In answer to question by Mr.. Tivarnas Oh
the witness said that he did NOT SOC
columbus Waterhouse at the bank on the
olst Gay OF December, 1892, as far as he
could remember, nor did he recollec+ Of
any SIoo,uOO transaction between Mr..
Waterh0use and Mr. Mcdonald at anv
time His desk, however, was in such q
poSlLlon that transaction of the kind
llilghe nave taken place in the bank with
out his seeing or hearing it.
In relation to ADVANCING abon+ Sooo ooo
on enterprises in Arizona and other LARGE.
sums IN this State of the banks finds t6e
witness stated that they were ''enoineered,I
by Frank L. Mcdonald.
This was leading up to the general inves-
tIgatlon of the affairs of the bank. which
the court refused to allow, on the ground
that 1T was irrelevant in the present pro-
ceedings. F''
Mr.. Livernash said that he desired To
show that at the time that the Bank Conn
m1ssioners examined the condition of the
Pacific Bank that institution had all the
legitimate capital that was shown bv the
books. The 100000 in checks of Water
house, D. S.Dorn and Others represented
legitimate capital based on other legitimate
securities which the bank held, but could
not then realize on.
The court suggested hypothetical ques-
ton to Livernash, the point of which was
whether it was right or not to swell the
accounts OF bank to the required amount
to tide over a crisis and swear to it as a
correct statement of its assets.
The attorney replied by asking the court
question having for its basis the SUPPOSE
ton that such checks represented their
face value.
Time was asked by the attorneys for the
defense to look up authorities in support
OF their position, which the court granted,
allowing them to proceed on another line
of examination.
Being asked if it was the habit of the
bank to publish full statement of its af-
fairs after examination by the Bank Com
missioners the witness said he thought an
epltome was published in the public
prints.
BY the Court-If the statement published
to the world included the $500, GOO in checks,
would that mean so much of the assets of
the bank?
Witness-It would.
D. F. Miner, a collection clerk of the
First National Bank. testified that he was
for about seventeen years note-teller of
the Pacific Bank, and that he was acting
in such capacity on December 81, 1892 He
did not remember of having seen Richard
Mcdonald and Mr.. WaterhouSe together in
the bank on that duy, nor was he eognizant
of any business transaction between them
on that day.
E. Bellermann was recalled but it was
him very far, as he was wanted on another
line of examination.
District Attorney Barnes passed him the
Waterhouse checks and asked him if he
gave them to Mr.. Morse after having made
a note of them. He gave them either to
Morse, he answered or a clerk who was
acting for him. The amount of the checks
went in as cash and was part of the cash
balance.
On adjournment the court announced
that the argument for the defense as to the
question of the legitimacy of the 100000
would be heard at $50 o'clock
this morning. That is to say the attorneys
for Mcdonald will be allowed to show, if
they can, by authorities, that the transac-
ton was in keeping with ordinary business