Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1898-12-08
County Courts.

Bank of Glassboro was begun before Judg,
Jessup last Thursday morning. The fact
of the case as told by Samuel Roberts
attorney for plaintiff, in his opening seen
to be that Mr. Dilks, book keeper fo
defendants bank, has been in the habit O
carrying deposits for VIM. II. Burning t.
the bank and then giving him credit fol
each deposit. That ON the night of Feb. 6
1896. Dukes came to Mr.. Burning al
Clarksboro and informed him he had oyer
drawn his account $1,000 Two days pre-
vious Mr.. Burning received a postal card
from the defendants bank, stating that he
had small credit The plaintiff claims
that through fraud and Misrepresentation:
the bank managed to get him TO sign 9
note for $500 which had been reduced by
several payments, and at present is for
Sl700, which he refused to pay.
The following Jurors were drawn &c
serve in the case Levi Bowers, Clayton B
Stetser, George R Mankin, Max F Engle
Michael Keegan. Charles Zimmerman, jos
Lay Edward Heritage. John +. Shoe
maker. Jonathan Hendrickson, George
Doughty, and Levi May. The rest of the
panel was dismissed for the term.
VIM Fl. Burning, the plaintiff, was the
first witness called. He testified to keep.
ing general store at Clarksboro in 1896
aud deposited in First National Bank Of
Glassboro from 1890 until 1895; that he
would give checks and money to Mr.
Dilks by banks direction TO deposit for
him; he had pass book, but it was
mostly in bank g possession /; that the first
conversation he had in reference to over
draft of his bank account was with Mr..
Dilks on Feb. 6, 1896, at 8 p. M, and that
on that night Mr.. Dilks came to see him
and told him that he had 0verdraWn his
bank account, which was caused by notes
being charged TO his account which had
been neglected before, and that he had
papers for him to sign, and that they must
be signed that night; that he went
that same night to see Mr.. G W. Elkint0n
director of the hank, with Mr.. Dllks, and
Mr. Elkinton proposed for him to sign q
note for $1,000, the amount claimed to be
due, which he did the next day, and his
brother, Ed Burning, endorsed the note,
and that be gave his brother a chattel
mortgage to secure him; and on that same
day be personally took the note to the
bank and gave it to Mr.. Dilks. In April
of 1911 be was at the bank at GlassborO, aud
after a meeting of the bank officials and
directors, Mr.. Elkinton told him the result
of the meeting was that they. the direc-
tors. had agreed that they would make
him present of 5000 if he would drop the
whole matter and thereupon instructed
Mr.. Emmell, the cashier, to give him new
bank book and credit him with 5000
which be did. On cross examination, Mr.
Burning said that four notes that he knew
of were charged to his account, and that
afterwards the parties called on him and
asked payment, and said that the bank
had charged the account to them, that
these were Edward Bunning's notes for
$3.50; Kaye note for $3.50, Borton note for
$3.50, and Pidgeon note for $40.
Thomas BOrton, the second witness,
testified that on January l, 1894, Burning
called to see him and had note of $3.50
and asked him to sign it for him as a
business note, which he did as the maker
of the note Note became due April Z, '94
and that note was charged TO his account;
saw Burning about it, and he said note
was also charged to his account. Edward
Burning, witness, produced on the part
of the plaintiff, said that he was brother
to the plaintiff, and endorsed the notes
which are the subject of contention in this
suit; that Mr. Dilks and Mr.. Elkinton
came TO his Office on Feb. 7, '96, and told
him that his brother had overdrawn his
account in the bank $1,000 and gave as the
reason that his brother was charged with
notes which had been neglected before, and
that a $3.50 note to himself was included ;
Mr.. Dilks also testified that the bank had
charged him with the $3.50, and taken it
from his account.
Court then took recess till Friday
morning at 10 a. m.
FRIDAY MORNING.
Howard Pidgeon was the first witness
called on Friday morning, and he said he
gave promssory note to VIM III. Burning
for $50, and afterwards received note
which he subsequently paid. The plaintiff
then rested his case. Mr.. S. Stanger
IsZard for the bank said that they would
show that on Feb. 7, 1896, there was due
the bank on Mr. Bunning's account $3.50,
and until March 8, 1898, the account was
still running, and that these notes in ques-
ton were charged to respective parties
accounts in the regular course pursued by
banks. and if they prove this they should
ASK JuuSmont lOI dmOuHU vi Pl iOO. MI.
Charles Elkin on, first witness called by
the defense, said he had been an officer of
defendant bank Tor past six years, and that
he had first heard of this oyerdraft on Feb
6, 'G6, when Mr.. Burning came to his
house and said that he had overdrawn his
account several hundred dollars, and asked
him to go on a note which he refused to do;
he also denied advising Burning in any
way.
Mr.. a. S. Emmell said he was cashier of
defendant bank until December '97, that
Burning made most of his deposits by
mail, and that Mr.. Bunning was credited
in 1894 with 1888 81, and that the Pidgeon,
Banning, Kaye and Borton notes were never
charged to the maker and endOrser together.
Mr.. Emmel also said that Mr.. Dilks first
eslled his attention to overdraft on Feb 3,
'96, and he Immediately notified all the
directors, ana MI. DIGS aiterWaro ao-
soo.;n H aad thss Eos as,ar 1 na had aeas
,,oatai - psanis',, 49, h,r, arad;, ~
tho honL NJ pa,oT m Po;s 80 ,-one~ol hooi,
keensr for the hank said that he had cone
over the hank hooks and stra;ghtened ont
M Rnnnino,s account and that the az.
conrt IN Fab ,oS WAC everd :,
1891 az NJ DnRo;s also sa;S that he
v was d;scopnt cIert and IN nersanalIv had
cbaroa If The Rnnn;ng p;dgaon and Ror.
ton notes in onesfion and that thew were
cha, oed IN their accounts and not IN Mr.
Rrpniro