Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1898-04-03
. THE STATE MUST ELECT
Upon What Particular Ground 1t Is
Going to Further Prosecute

In the Matter of the Embezzlement
Charge Against F. w. Reynolds.
The Court So Decided Yesterday
Afternoon-The State Protested,
and Then Took Time Until Mon.
day to Consider as to What it
Would Do-Summary Of the Evil
dence Of Yesterday.
Yesterday afternoon, in the trial of
the case of the State v. F. w. Rey-
nolds, indicted with the embeZzlement
of the funds, etc., of the Guarantee
Loan and Trust Company, the Court
stopped the proceedings while J. T..
Douglass, stockholder, was on the
stand, late in the afternoon, and noti-
fed the prosecution that it must elect
upon which count of the indictment
further proceedings would be had. The
State demurred and resisted this de-
cision, but had to submit, but asked
until Monday morning to consider.
The morning session opened with
H. c. Ogden on the stand. On cross
examination, by Mr. Howard, witness
stated he had never given a note for
the balance of $2,25C due on his stock.
Mr.. Reynolds had asked Mr.. Ogden
for his note, and called his attention
to a minute of the Directors, requiring
a note from the subscribers to the
original guarantee stock, but Mr.. Og-
den said he would not give his note
because the other subscribers had not
had their paper endorsed.
Dr. H. L. Henry, of Grafton, was
called, and recited the fact that he had
loan from the Company, which he
had repaid by draft for SS49. Other
wise his evidence and cross-examina
ton was unimportant.
Miss Pearl Reyner, a clerk in the
Office of the Company in this city, was
next called. The important point in
her testimony was that upon one oc-
casion defendant, Secretary and Gen
eral Manager of the Company, came
to this city from Washington and
asked witness for two vouchers, say
ing he intended to draw his salary and
expenses. He took about sos from
the safe, on the 18th of January, and
returned to Washington the next day.
She did not know what defendant did
with the vouchers. On cross-eXamina-
ton witness said Mr.. Reynolds took
all the vouchers to Washington with
him, and supposed he took the two in
question. Witness admitted she had
taken her salary of S1S from the safe
and placed a proper voucher on file,
and that was the general custom of
the Office
The afternoon session opened with
Pearl Reyner on the stand for cross
examination by Mr.. Howard.
After a few questions the witness
was excused. and the defense submit
ted list of papers, ETC., which they de-
sired produced in Court. The State
offered to produce certain of the items
specified, and objected to producing
others. Argument with the Court fol-
lowed, during which Mr.. Howard said
these papers had been forcibly taken
from defendant and should be pro-
duced, to which the Court rejoined
that it did not propose to go into that
it was a matter belonging to another
Court. Mr.. Howard then dictated his
demand for specific papers to the stem
ographer, that it might go into the
record, the demand specifying that H..
C. Ogden, the prosecuting witness, be
requested to produce these papers. The
list was a long one. At its conclusion
defense alleged the items were import
ant and essential to him in and about
his defense, as showing that he had
properly and honestly received and
distributed the money of the Company,
including the item of sos, testified to
by the States witness, Pearl Reyner.
The Court said the papers might be
produced, to which Mr.. Ogden said:
Its about a day and a half's work
to get them together
WELL" said the Court, produce the
vouchers for the s10S, anyhow.
Louis F. Stifel, cashier of the Title
& Trust Co., was next called and testi-
fed to an account opened by defendant,
as secretary. He was asked specifically
about a deposit of money repaid on
the Grafton Henry loan, but witness
could only recall that draft had been
paid and placed to Reynolds credit;
he could not recall the amount Or date.
Witness did not know that Reynolds
had a personal account at his bank.
The State then set out to prove by
witness that defendant, over his sigma
ture as secretary, had appriated certain
money of the Company to his own
use. by certain checks in the posses
sion of witness, which checks We're
produced. The defense objected that
the checks proved nothing and could
not possibly do so, and as a result OF
the contention which followed the jury
was excused for time and the matter
was argued. The States idea was that
the bank account was overdrawn when
DR.. Henry paid in the $849 due from
him, and out of that money, SO paid,
REYNOLDS drew checks amounting to
over $500 on various people, to him.
self. to pay rent of the Washington Of
flee. and to pay certain furniture
bill, all of which showed embezzlement
of the funds of the Company The
Court thought evidence might be heard
IN the point to which Mr. Howard oh