The record-union., 1896-05-22
ON ARGUMENT This MORNING
4 Motion for 3. ]. Gresory'S Dis
charge.
Justice Henry Wants Counsel to Look
Up and Present the Law
Points.

There was little furry of excite
ment in Justice Henry's court yesterday
morning when the Gregory eXamlna-
tion case was resumed. On the pre-
ceding day L. C. SCHNEIDER, bookkeeper
for the Gregory Company, produced
memorandum which he said he had pre-
pared hurriedly to assist him in the ex-
animation of the company's books.
Some errors were found in it, and after
court adjourned on Wednesday he de-
stroyed it.
When SCHNEIDER went on the stand
yesterday morning Assistant District
Attorney Jones asked him where was
the memorandum, and SCHNEIDER said
he had destroyed it.
Mr.. Jones wanted to know if dt was
destroyed by order OF Mr.. Bruner or the
defendant himself, and SCHNEIDER re-
piled that it was not. The paper, he
said, was a private one he had pre-
pared to enable him TO get at some fig
ures quickly.
Mr.. Jones appeared to be consider
ably excited over the loss of the memo
randum, and declared it's destruction
am outrageous act.
Mr.. Bruner called his attention to the
fact that the books themselves were be-
fore him for his examination, but this
did not satisfy Mr.. Jones, and he con-
tinued to denounce the action of the
witness.
SCHNEIDER said the memorandum had
been useless on Wednesday, as it was
found defective, and Mr.. Jones had
caused him to get SO ratified over it that
it was worthless, wherefore he de-
stroyed it.
Justice Henry, who has been whole
week earning a three-dollar fee by
hearing the case, then took a hand in
the controversy. He said if the law
yers did not at once resume the case he
would adjourn court.
That settled it, and Mr.. Jones asked
the witness to explain why there were
no entries relating to the salary of
Stenographer Watson during 1895. To
this Mr.. Bruner objected because it re-
lated to something that had no bear
ing on the question of the company'S
solvency prior to May, 1894.
The question was allowed, and the
witness replied that Watson was then
paid weekly and the salary item
merely went into the general expense
account
During the examination of the wit
ness Mr. Jones asked for the CASH books
of 1894, but Mr.. SCHNEIDER said he could
not find them.
Mr.. Jones asked him if, as assignee,
he did not have the custody of all the
books of the firm, and Mr.. SCHNEIDER re-
piled that he had Of all the books found
in the safe, and he had produced them.
He did not find the small cash-book re-
ferred to.
Mr.. Jones gave notice to the court that
if the memorandum should show up
later in the case, on cross examination,
as he expected it would, he would claim
the right to re-examine the witness in
regard to it.
Mr. Bruner said the defense would not
ask for any memorandum, had no use
for it, and would not examine the wit
ness in regard to it. The prosecution
had the books before them and he was
willing they should take all the time de-
sired and complete their examination of
the witness while they had him.
The witness was then examined in re-
gard to the account he had prepared as
assignee of the company. He said that
in making up this list he had not in
cluded accounts that were Outlawed or
considered worthless.
Mr.. Bruner objected to the witness
being examined in regard to accounts
year older than on the date embraced
in the complaint, but Mr.. Jones pro-
ceeded on the same line of examination.
The schedule made at the time of the
insolvency showed that the sum then
due the company, according to it's
claims, amounted to SAT, 1856 o.
Mr.. Bruner again objected to the in
PRODUCTION Of figures made year after
1894. Accounts that We're good in 1894
may not have been in 1895 or 1896
Firms or individuals may have failed
during that time. The prosecution had
no right to go into matters later than
1894 in an attempt to show that claim
on the books a year prior thereto was
not good.
Mr.. Jones was replying to this when
the court, to same time, told him to go
ahead with the witness, and he pro-
ceeded to examine the witness in regard
to the condition Of the company's af-
fairs at the time of the failure in 1895.
Mr.. Bruner called the courts atten-
ton to the fact that the defense ex-