The San Francisco call., 1897-07-22
by Figel. could show mum berless embez-


Elements.
There was but one ledger. and this trial
balance book No. l was for that ledger. /
don't know what use there was for another
trial balance book, as this one is only hall
filled" stated witness.
This testimony about another trial
bala book carries no weight with me, !"
stated Judge Campbell. This witness
declares he don't know anything about it..
He thinks be saw book and he can give
no tangible reason why he thinks he saw
it. AS matter OF fact, he says there was
no necessity for such book, and he knows
nothing at all about 1t.
Witness became terribly tied up in the
matter of his having seen Theodore Figel
on June 2, and that he was terribly ner-
vous. General Barnes pursued him un-
mercifully and witness finally withdrew
all his previous testimony, saying: 1T
was not on the I'd of June; l did not see
him that day; it must have been the day
after. Pm all mixed up.
II cannot give any time or date when
Mr.. Figel showed me the $4,000 receipt he
had from Mr.. Hoffman. l remem Der that
some time before that | advised him to
get receipt as he had told me that Mr.
Hoffman had drawn some $4,000 from
him and he did not want to have il car
ried on the books"
In regard to the $1,000 deposited with
the firm of Hoffman, Rothchlld & Co. by
NJ. Zerker in March, witness testified that
it was he who gave a receipt for the
amount, and that he signed the firms
name to the due bill or receipt. He had
never been given authority to sign the
firm s name, but it was usual thing for
him to do that under similar circu "a
stances.
Last week Edward Rothchild of the
firm stated that no one but his partner
had authority to sign the firms name to
any document and if Theodore Figel had
ever been known to do it he would have
been sum marily discharged.
Witness testified that a week prior to
the death of Isaac Hoffman he accompa-
MED Mr. Figel to the office for the purpose
of making the trial balance. He could
not state, however, why a trial balance
should be made or, as matter of fact
how it could be made, as the books had
not been posted for some time previous.
1T was on January that / borrowed
$1,000 from B. Joseph TO lend to Mr.. Figel
There was no secrecy about the matter
Mr.. Figel gave me his note on demand
and / never asked for its payment until
after the death OF Mr.. Hoffman, when |
sued him for the amount"
That's right" pu. in General Barnes,
"like every body else, when he was in trou-
Bile you had to jump en- him. You were
Ddlu, nOWSNcf, NcIc yOu null
Eyes, SIR"
81 remem Der that on many occasions
Mr.. Hoffman and Mr.. Fgel went to the
store toge her at nights and consulted
They also had private consultations in
the office during the day"
G. a. kinkelin, who has since gone into
business on his own account, but who was
on June 1 the receiving teller for The
Paris A merican Bank. was called as a
witness. He testified to seeing Theodore
Figel on June l, few minutes after
banking hours, when he came in TO de-
posit Sl482 rs. At that time the witness
thought that Figel was nervous, He also
made a deposit for Bernard Jacobs, ana
he seemed TO be pale and in rush. That
is the reason be thought he was nervous
On crosse Examination witness recapitu-
lated the affairs Of the Hoffman, Alexan-
der & co. firm and of Hoffman, Roth
child & Co., so far as the bank was con-
cerned, in the past eleven years.
Bernard Joseph was called. He knew
FigeI since he began working for Hoffman,
Alexander & Co.
General Barnes objected to the question
as to when the witness began loaning
money to Figel.
Attorney Ach stated that the desire was
to show that on April 7 Figel borrowed
Joseph's handbook for the purpose OF de-
posting some money to his credit in pay
ment of $1,000 owed by Figel to Joseph
that Figel deposited $500 to Joseph s
credit, and that this iden tical amount is
the basis of one of the emb zzIement
charges.
Barnes allowed the question, and the
court adjourned until this morning.