The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-12-16
The EX-Banker TestifieS In His
Own Behalf.
A $4,000 TRANSACTION
IN WHICH A CERTAIN "J. HAIR
RISON'' FIGURED.
Mr.. Bacon Unable to Throw Any
Light Upon the Matter-Ex-
Foreman of the Grand Jury Called
to Impeach Judge Loofbourow's
Testimony.


behalf yesterday in the trial at the |
federal court. He was on the stand |
during most of the day, and survived a
close and detailed examination by At
torney Maginnis upon the bank book
entries claimed to be fraudulent and |
erroneous.
The case was almost completed yes
terday. and the prosecution announced !
that after the introduction of brief re-
buttal testimony this morning they |
would be ready for the argument. The
prosecution, by the testimony of two
eX-grand jurymen, sought to impeach
Judge Loofbourow for contradictory
statements to the court and the grand
jury regarded the 555 shares of San
itarium stock supposed to have been
owned by the court.
BACON TEsTIFIEs.
The examination of the ex-bank pres
ident began as soon as court convened
in the morning. In response to queS-
tons by Colonel Ellis, Mr.. Bacon said
he had received the assets of the bank
as purchaser upon the closing of the
bank on Feb. "a, 1894 The 800 shares
of Sanitarium stock were among these
assets as we'll as other stock of the
company held by the bank as security.
The overdraft notes were used in ac-
cordance with instructions from MIR.
LaZier and these were always used
when overdrafts were granted, and
Judge Loofbourow was one of the Dor
roWerS who had given such a note. He
admitted that S357.S4 had been placed
in the wrong column in the report to
the comptroller and that a balance of
81, 900 reported at that time should have
been $757S4 All the errors, he claimed,
were due to placing figures in the
wrong column.
What is your full name?" asked At
torney McGinnis, at the conclusion of
the direct examination.
WHO is ]. HARRISON?
James Harrison Bacon" answered
the defendant.
Are you not, Mr. Bacon, the j. Har-
rison who figured on the books of the
bank in $4,000 transaction, in con-
nection with several hundred shares of
Sanitarium stock?"
81 do not remember anything about
that transaction"
do you mean to say" roared At
torney Maginnis, that there could be
a transaction with the bank involving
$50 900 without your being fully aware
of it?"
"Well, do not remember it and do
not know who Harrison is"
The court sustained an objection to
further questioning upon this point and
Mr.. Bacon stated, in reply to Attorney
Maginnis, that his personal overdraft
note had been for $4,000. Regarding the
note, Mr.. Bacon said he had destroyed
| it, and did not remember it's date.
| When asked why he had overdrawn
| $3.50 more than his note called for, the
| defendant said he did not know he had
iexceeded the limit and that he could
have made the o. D. note for $4,000
had he wished to.
THE GRANT NOTE.
Mr.. Bacon was questioned as to why
he made out and signed A. NJ. Grants
note and in reply said he had been au-
thorized to do so. He admitted hay
ing made out memorandum which
were entered as notes and cash items.
| Regarding what constituted a cash
item, MI. Bacon said it might be
ticket or memorandum. He did not
know why note of the Hot Sulphur
! Springs company got in as cash item.
and did not remember what the bank
had to show for an entry of $4,000.
The defendant, in reply to a question
as to whether the o. D. notes were not
almost always from people whom he
could control or with whom he was in
terested in a business way, said he
stated that he did not know whether
or not he had been a director of the
sanitarium. Mr.. Bacon gave a list of
the banks sanitarium stock certif1-
Gates, which revealed several discrep-
ancies when compared with the list
furnished by Bank Examiner Lazier.
Mr.. Maginnis stated here, in response
TO an objection, that his purpose was
to show that the certificates were is
sued without any consideration to the
bank.
IN THE AFTERNOON.
When placed on the stand again,
he remembered showing certificates of
stock to Mr.. Lazier, informing the
bank examiner that they represented
a note of $4,000. He did not remember
Mr.. Lazier's having asked him where
the note was.
do you not know" asked Attorney
Maginnis, that the books show that
on July this $4,000 was discounted
and that you were given credit for the
same amount on your personal ac-
count?"
No, I do not remember that" said
Mr.. Bacon. Il do not know where
the note for $4,000 came from He
did not remember that on Oct 10 bills
discount" was credited with $4,000
and stocks debited in a like amount
although he identified a slip on which
the entry was made as being in his
handwriting.
Mr.. Bacon admitted that in the list
of liabilities of officers and directors
there were the names of c.. S. Zane
and others which should not have been
there. He stated further that there
was an error in the column of 1900
For the purpose of impeaching Judge
Loofbourow, w. D. Sharp, ex-foreman
of the grand jury, was examined by
the prosecution. He testified that ac-
cording to his recollection LoofbouroW
stated to the grand jury that he had
never seen any shares of sanitariun
stock at the bank.
Mr.. Sharp also stated that H NJ
Bacon and F. L. Holland made similar
statements to the grand jury, but this
testimony was stricken out on the
ground that the prosecution could not
produce evidence to impeach their owr
witnesses.
Milando Pratt, who was secretary OF
the grand jury at the time the indict-
ment was found, also testified to Judge
LOofbOuroW'S having told the jury he
had never seen the stock. The witness
was not allowed to refer to the gran6
jury minute book.
j. H. Knaus was then placed on the
stand and said that Ross, one of the
bank directors who had an outstand.
ing overdraft, had told him in Febru-
airy that he did not remember signing
an O. D. note.
Court then adjourned until 10 O'Clock