Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1898-11-17
MISSOURI NATIONAL ASSET TOSSED
ABOUT.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED
RENEWALS AMI TRANSFERS MOST
FREQUENT TRANSACTIONS.
Affairs Of the Defunct Bank Were
EntnngIed With Those of Cor
poratiOns Whose Assets
Proved Practically
Worthless.

Good progress was made yesterday in the
federal court in the trial of the cases
against d. v. Rieser and R. d. Covington,
of the Missouri National bank.
Charles f. Barnhart, who was the first
cashier of the bank, was the first witness
called yesterday morning. He testified to
the minute book used by the directors when
the bank was organized. 1t showed the
following stockholders: d. V. Rieger. r.
II. Kump. Peter Soden. S. s. Serat, g. f.
Barnhart and r. D. CovinSton- He was
called to show the legal organization of
the bank and the fact that Rieger and
Covington We're the chief men in the or
ganization from the first. He was reading
the minutes, and when he reached the fact
that ID. V. Rieger was made president and
another Rieger, his brother. was made at
torney for the bank, the attorneys for the
defense made strong objections. and that
brought Mr.. Walker TO his feet with the
statement that he wanted every word Of
the minutes read because he wanted to
show that the bank was organized by
Rieger for his benefit and that of the Rie-
ger family. Judge Hallett ruled the por-
ton of the minute out and the minutes
were read down to the meeting OF 1893,
when the annual election of officers was to
take place. Another objection from the at
torneys for the defense was made. but 1t
was shown that c. +. Rieger was one of
the judges at the election when his brother
was chosen president. In fact, the min
utes showed that at all times he was one of
the judges at the banks election.
Richard H. Covington, who was discount
clerk of the defunct bank when it closed,
and who is a brother of the defendant
cashier, was the second witness. The dis
count register OF the bank was shown him
and he was questioned at length about the
note Of December S, 1854, Of Benjamin w.
Townley for s15,3i5. which was taken by
the bank and which proved to be worthless.
the amount being almost wholly lost to the
bank.
Just at this juncture Mr.. Hagerman came
up with a motion to quash the first count
OF the indictment for the reason that it
sc. out the fact that the note was made by
Benjamin W: Townley: when Il was signed
by 3. w. Townley. The indictment also
showed hat it fell due on april ); ls ISL
run four months and would fall due in
Mi. Hagerman had an abundance of law,
court decisions and references to back W
his claim that there was d fatal variance
in the averments of the indictment anc
the facts. and he presented them at great
MI. Walker fought hard TO save the
point. for he considered 1t one of the best
in the thirteen counts in the indictment
He expects to prove by it and under i
that the $4,000 originally owed TO the bank
by President Rieger was switched TO his
brother, J. j. Rieger, and that afterward:
the debt was switched to B. w Townley
and later to the Hale Harness and Firt
Supply Company. and finally lost to the
bank. The argument of Mr.. Hagerman Wa:
finished shortly before noon and the cour'
told Mr.. Walker he could make his reply
after the noon intermission.
Mr.. ak for the government, asked
the court to put the jury in charge of !;
bailif during the trial. Tuesday night th'
jury was allowed to separate and go home
but hereafter, no matter how long the trfa
lasts. the jury will be KEPT at a hotel. Mr.
Manning asked permission to spend tn
nights at his home here, and offered 4
pledge himself to obey the instructions Q
the court. but Judge Hallett shook hi
head and the ruling was not changed.
Mr.. Walker Sustained.
When the hearing was resumed after tn
noon recess, Special Counsel Walker mad
his reply to the argument of Mr.. Hager
man to quash the first count of the ind!ct
ment. Mr.. Walker said the argument o
Mr.. Hagerman was made under a miscon
ception OF the facts. He said the ohens
charged in the first count of the indict
ment was not the mere act of discountin
the note of B.. W. Townley for sl5.345, bu
was the misapplication of the funds req
resented in the transaction.
The fact that the note was not partic
ularly and completely described was vi
avoidable. II having been long since de
stroyed. No description in fact was nece.
gary. because the note was not the offens'
The alleged variance in the dates were III
same as showed on the discount registei
The objection made to the note, which Wa
executed as that OF b. w. Townley. whe
the Indictment charged it as Benjamin v
Towniey. was explained by saying that il
dictments must set forth the Christia
name of the party charged.
Mr.. Hagerman. in reply. held that tn
variance of dates shown was fatal. Til
note of Townley was made December
1894. and payable four months after dat,
therefore could not have been payable /
1894. no matter what the date on the di:
count register showed. He held also tha
the indictment should set forth the not
of BENJAMIN w. Townle was made an
executed in the name of B. w. Townley.