The record-union., 1896-05-21

the petition, which is in the usual form,
and the signatures thereto were identi-
fed by the witness.
Mr. Jones was proceeding to segregate
the amounts of Indebtedness prior ana
subsequent to May, 1894, when the
$1,000 loan was made.
To this method Mr.. Bruner objected.
He claimed that the witness should be
asked to testify as to the condition OF
the firms finances prior to the date OF
assignment.
Then the company's books were put
in evidence for this purpose, and the
witness examined in regard to the en-
tries therein.
The claim of Mrs. M. E. Gregory, on
account Of moneys lent, was found 10
have been $10,232 90 prior to May
1894. For rent, the amount was
S696 So There was owing to u. v.
Watson, an employee, S22o. There was
due G. " Gillespie of Red Bluff 81
642 95 on a note, and to Thresher
Bros. of Gridley $3.50. The books showed
that there was received from Mrs. Lee
$4,000 on January 10, 1898, and a note
given for it, In May, 1894, there was
another loan received of S2,0OO. Prior
to May IA, 1894 there was due 6. Per-
rata & Co. of San Francisco the sum OF
81, ,391.
In response to Mr.. Jones inquiry, the
witness said the company had no real
estate.
Of the assets the books showed
claim of $S,997 80 against one Smith OF
Chicago on a shipment of salmon; one
against A. Galgani of San Joaquin Tor
81 POO, and another against M. H. D1nk
of Woodland, $525; one of $4,000 dam
ages against the Sheriff of Sacramento
County for the seizure of the companys S
books; goods on hand of the value OF
$626. These claims, the witness said,
are yet in litigation.
Mr.. Jones asked a number of ques-
tions relating to the condition of the
company in 1895, and to these Mr..
Bruner excepted. He said:
1--WE are charged here with a crime
alleged to have been committed an
May, 1894, and 1t is not right for coun-
sci to examine the witness as to what
was done in 1895. We insist that the
strict rules of evidence be applied to
this case
The objection was overruled and the
examination of the witness proceeded
with.
Mr. Jones made frequent reference to
dummy assets, and the witness said
they were not dummies, but legitimate
accounts.
The multitude Of entries in the fnsol-
vency schedule We're then gone over
item by item, the court saying he
would permit it as being the quickest
way out of it.
Concerning Mr.. Jones' frequent al
lusions to the claim against Sheriff
Johnson and the absurdity of includ-
ing it in an insolvency proceeding, Mr.
Bruner said a lawyer who failed to in
clude all claims of his client in such a
proceeding would be false to his oath
as an attorney, and if counsel were a
lawyer he was aware of that.
Witness SCHNEIDER was examined at
length by Mr.. Jones regarding the
items in the schedule, their character,
etc. The cash on hand on the date of
the assignment was S36 %. He knew
of no assets of the company outside of
those enumerated in the schedule at
the time of the assignment.
Mr.. Jones at this point said he had had
no opportunity of consulting with the
witness prior to his being called
to the stand, and might have to ask
for time to examine a schedule pre-
pared by the witness purporting to
show the eompany's condition prior to
May II, 1894
Mr.. Bruner said that so long as the
prosecution confined itself to matters
prior to the date named, the defense
would waive it's rights and allow Mr..
Jones to examine and cross examine
the witness in any way he saw fit in
order to obtain the desired information.
The case had been dragging along, and
the defense was anxious to get through.
The examination of the witness was
then proceeded with on that line. 1t
was necessarily a very slow and tedious
proceeding, as it gave rise to few op-
portunities for animated "spats" be-
tween the attorneys.
A few accounts were included in the
assets Of the company which Mr.. Jones
said had been outlawed, and claimed
they could not therefore be classed as
assets.
This method Of inquiry occupied the
remainder of the afternoon. The exam
ipation will be resumed TODAY