Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-04-05
MUCH CONTENTION
Between Counsel Yesterday in the
Reynolds Case.
The State Gives Up the Charge of
Emb =zzlement Of Property, and
Will Eely Upon Specific Items Of
Money An Outline OF the More
Important Developments of the
Day.

of the trial of the case of State ". +.
W. Reynolds, indicted for embezzle-
ment, the State, in accordance with
the requirement of the Court, Satur-
day afternoon, stated it had elected to
make its case on the empezzlement
of money, and not of property, and
would further confine itself to two GER
tain sums of $1J6 and $500, and then
started to work on the first named
sum, with the understanding that
later on it would fix upon some spe-
clfic item, as the entire amount Of
either OF the sums does not have to be
proven, but simply one item of cash.
John c. Stoner, Of Washington, was
put on the stand, but after a few
questions counsel fell into an argu-
ment over points in controversy, and
the entire morning was spent in dis
cussing the matter.
AT the afternoon session Mr. Stoner
again took the stand, and was asked
concerning certain checks, held by the
State, drawn for the furnishing OF the
Washington office The defense OBJ
jected, and after a controversy and
discussion was sustained.
The defense said it would confne it.
self to the sos transaction, and would
settle about the $14S transaction later.
Mr.. StOner was then excused. and
krthur +. Faulkner, accountant and
insurance man, was called by the
State. He had been called upon about
d month ago to audit the accounts Of
the Company, and soon after the or
ganization of the Company he worked
for Mr.. Reynolds, on a set of new
books, and later he assisted Mr. Rey-
nolds, at monthly intervals, but he
made no audit" The witness ex-
planned the difference between "ac-
counting" and auditing" and said
his work was that of an accountant
and not that of an auditor, except in
one specific occasion. Mr.. Faulkner
took one of the books and explained
just what he did on this OCCASION
March, 1897 vouchers were shown
witness at that time, or any other
time, until his audit of a month ago
Witness knew nothing of the correct
ness Of the entries in the statement
book, but he did know that the figures
We're correctly transferred and were
accurately added up. Witness next
took up the disbursement book, with
regard to salaries, and said in most
cases Mr.. Reynolds salary was the
first entry from September 1896 The
witness called off from the disburse-
ment book all the pages upon which
an entry of Mr.. Reynolds salary APP
peared, up to page No. a. The State
then asked for an explanation from
witness as to the entry of SIS salary,
it appearing twice as to each month,
once on one page and again on the
opposite page The defense objected
on the ground that the book spoke for
itself and the jury was to decide, but
the witness was allowed to explain
the system, using the item of Rey-
nolds' salary for that purpose. The
book was then handed to the jury to
be examined The State then asked
witness whether the disbursement
book showed the payment of Mr.. Rey
nOlds' salary every month, to which
defense objected on the ground that
the book was the best evidence as to
that, and the objection was sustained.
With ISIS then said the book was not
posted up after October 81. 1897. State
asked for an explanation of the entries
for salary, in October, 1897, to which
defense objected. The question was
allowed, and witness said the first line
of page % was an entry of $75 for
salary, and on page "a, for same month,
on first line. was a similar entry. Wit
ness said the only explanation he
could find. was that the first entry was
for September salary, and the last one
for October. Witness said he could
not make correct audit to the Board
without going outside of the books
He had done so. He was asked as to
any salary he found had been paid
Reynolds after October, and said he
found in a check book. in Reynolds
writing, a stub marked IF. w.
Reynolds. salary, 1925" This Of De-
cember ~. 1897. The witness pro-
duced the stub Mr.. Howard exam
ined it, and asked the witness to look
at it again saying it was pretty good
illustration of letting the witness
speak instead of the book. At this
iuncture the Court said it had deter
mind to exclude the question and an
swer relating to the salary Of 1925,
just referred to above. But the State
returned to the attack. and the wit
ness was given the check book with
the stub and corresponding check.
The defense objected, but Mr.. Coniff
said the check was already in evil
dence. Us ito" said Mr.. Howard /;
then | want every man on this jury
to see that check. and see if it says
Reynolds salary"
II said the stub said So" said the
witness.
DO you still say so?" asked Mr..
Howard
Il think So" said witness.
The entry on the stub was so abbre-
waited that it was subject to any
said he could not read it, and did fot
believe the Court could The check
was drawn "for salaries and not for
Mr. Reynolds salary The stub was adj
mitted in evidence, and shown to the
jury, and some Of them were heard tC
say they could not make the entry
out.
The question of the admissibility Of
the stub and check. and of the opinion
of the witness regarding them and
what they meant, was fought over al
considerable length, and finally the
Court decided the papers should go r
the jury to explain themselvs, with
such aid as witness might give.
Witness-''It took me three weeks
to investigate these books.
Mr. Coniff-''Well, We'll have to take
three weeks more.
Mr.. Howard we are In no hurry,
And the witness sighed and started
but was at once met with an objection