The record-union., 1896-05-22

Iepteu TO the ruuQS uuQoT WHICH ouCA
testimony was admitted.
The method of examining the witness
was necessarily slow and tedious, the
attorney and witness going over the ac-
counts in the books item by item, but
revealing nothing Of special interest
The witness would explain how ac-
counts were kept, why this and that
entry were made etc.
Mr.. Jones asked the witness how much
E. j. Gregory owed the firm on the l4th
Of May, 1894, and Mr.. SCHNEIDER re-
ferred him to the books, which he said
showed how Mr.. Gregory's account with
the firm stood
Mr.. Jones did not tackle the job, but
passed on to some other account. He
wanted to know how much the firm
owed the Southern Pacific Company
May IA, 1894
Nothing" replied the witness, "the
Southern Pacific Company owed them"
After a while Mr. Bruner objected to
the witness being used to instruct coun-
sci, and Mr.. Jones said this could have
been avoided If the memorandum used
by the witness on the preceding day had
not been destroyed.
THAT was my personal property"
said Mr. SCHNEIDER, land I had a right to
destroy it,
! Yes" responded Mr.. Jones, land you
had pretty good instructions on that
point"
At the time of the filing of the petit
tion in insolvency Gn 1880, Mr.. Jones
said, the books show that the firm was
insolvent to the extent of 81, 700.
Mr.. Bruner again objected that coun-
sci was dealing with matters that had
no bearing on the condition of affairs
prior to May IA, 1894, and Mr. Jones re-
piled that he was endeavoring to show
that the alleged standing of the COM
pany in 1894 could not be substantiated
The court said the testimony would be
allowed, as he desired to give both sides
all possible latitude, and he hoped coun-
sci would proceed as rapidly as possible.
After a little tiff between the court
and Mr.. Jones over a protest by the
latter against the Judge smiling while
ruling on one of counsers questions,
the prosecution excused witness Schin-
dler.
Mr.. Bruner said he would only ask
the witness a few questions, as he did
not desire to prolong the case.
In your opinion were Gregory Bros
solvent or insolvent on the 14th day of
May, 1S94?" asked Mr.. Bruner of the
witness SCHNEIDER
To this Mr.. Jones entered an objec-
ton, but the question was allowed.
The firm was solvent" replied the
witness.
To substantiate this statement fig
ures were shown as deduced from the
book accounts and the value of certain
assets from the standpoint of the de-
fense
Another spat between counsel here
broke out by Mr.. Jones ridiculing the
claim of the company against Smith of
Chicago for some $4,000, and to al
low their ruff1ed tempers to become
smooth Judge Henry ordered a recess.
When court reassembled Mr.. Jones
called c. F. Dillman, Cashier of the
National Bank Of D. o. Mills & Co., to
the stand. The witness produced
note on which the bank lent Gregory
Bros $4,000. 1t was indorsed by Mrs.
NJ E. Gregory. In the month of May,
1894, $1,000 Of this sum remained un-
paid.
The purpose of this testimony, Mr..
Jones said, was to show that the $4,000
mentioned in the petition for insolvency
was not an Independent note
Here the prosecution rested its case
Mr.. Bruner then moved the court
that the defendant be discharged He
read the complaint alleging that in May,
1894, Gregory had borrowed $1,000 of
Mrs. NJ. E. Lee on the representation
that his firm was solvent
Mr.. Bruner said it was necessary for
the prosecution to show that the firm
was insolvent at the time the money
was advanced; that Gregory knew that
it was insolvent, and that he had rep
resented otherwise to Mrs. Lee Coun-
sci said these things had not been and
could not be proved and that, on the
contrary, it was in black and white that
Mrs. Lee knew the condition of the
firm at the time the money was lent.
Mr.. Jones opposed the motion. He
contended that the defendant was
notoriously insolvent in 1895, only
a year after the money was bor-
rowed. Counsel then claimed that
he had proven that the Gregory firm
was not solvent in May, 1894.
| Mr.. Jones argued the case at con-
siderable length, insisting that it was
1 oiiAy HtCeSSdIy W prove lndI the de-
| fendant was virtually insolvent, though
he held that it had been shown to be a
fact. The schedule included in the insol-
vency petition, prepared a year later,
showed a falling off of upward of $40, 900,
and this, Mr.. Jones insisted, was evidence
that in May, 1894, the alleged assets
claimed by the company were not
sound.
Judge Henry interrupted Mr. Jones
and remarked that he would prefer to
have counsel on both sides present the
law authorities bearing on the points
at issue, rather than hear arguments
at that time. He suggested that an
adjournment be taken until morning,
and that counsel then come prepared
TO argue fully the motion for dis
missal.
| This was agreed to, and the court ad-