The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-18
STATUTE or LIMITATION.
Quay's Counsel Plead il in Behalf Of
Their Client

Their Client.
Philadelphia. PA, April IL Meyer
Goldsmith. the Commonwealth expert
accountant, was on the stund ali ilay ~
the trial Of Seuniur Quay. makin4 stete-
ments of facts That are apparently
damaging 10 the defendants side Of the
cas". Goldsmith is the main witness
for the prosecution. and II Is through
BIN that all Of the documentary evi-
dcncc Is to lie presented
This witness has examiped the banks
books thoroughly and bc came into
court this morning with II nHmber Of
typewriter sheets containing figures
that he gathered from the various books
relating mainly 10 the deposit Of the
State Treasurer and the account Of Sem
ator Quay. lie swore to the correctness
OF his work, and then the District At
torncy formally offered the paper in
evidence.
This was objected to by the defence
on the ground that such paper is not
testimony 1t was insisted that the
books themselves should he placed be-
fore the witness and his statements
uttered from what he saw in them.
The judge decided in favor OF the de-
fence, thus giving that side the first
piece of comfort it has experienced since
the trial began.
Although the defence apparently gain
ed this point the paper was practically
in evidence Witness Goldsmith using
its contents in framing his answers to
the District Attorneys questions. When
tie Quay lawyers objected to this, they
were met by the judges explanation that
while the paper could not be used as
sworn evidence, the witness might use
il 10 refresh his memory. One effect az
all this was to make it car,Wn that
the case will now go to the jury, there
having been some doubt on this point
up to the decision to admit all that
Goldsmith might have to-day.
Just before the close of the day )
proceedings there was another ruling by
Judge Biddle in favor of the defcace
which may have an important bearing
on the future of the case. lac Statdte
Of limitation has been pleaded time and
again by Senator Quay's lawyers as a
bar to much of the testimony presented
by the Commonwealth. As Mr.. Quay was
indicted on November 18th, 1898, the
two years allowed by the statute for
prosecution wonld extend back only 20
November l7th 1896. On this basis Mr..
Watson has frequently urged Judge
Biddle to exclude mention of transac-
lions dating back to 1886, wheu Mr..
sOuay was State Treasurer. The eaprt
has uniformly held, in effect, hat tins,
statute Of limitations does not affect the
evidence but does affect tile CRIME.
ys4n - 4 sstft
that he alleges the defendants guilt du-
ring the two years the law confined him
to. and to prove this the corraoofatve
evidence of the previous years should
certainly be- admitted. Judge Biddle
decided against the commonwealth, and
the Quay lawyers We're very happy. lie
ruled that the evidence should BE- can
fined to the conspiracy alleged aud not
relate To some other conspiracy.
The lawyers for the defence claim
that the decision practically rules cut
the figures prior to November nth. lS!hi
Mr.. Rothermel says its effect will b.
10 prevent him from offerinS much Of
the evidence he hoped TO Pre- sent.
All day long Mr.. Goldsmith read cut
figures taken from the bans 5oniSs cni-
braeing the various settlement periods OF
six months each dating back 10 October
Slst, 1898, showing the amount If the
State deposit, the amount loaned 10
senator Quay during each six months,
the amount OF interest allowed the state
Treasurer for that portion Of the State
deposit apparently not spf aside h'r
senator Qnay's usei the amount OF IN
terest. If any, the Senatornaid on his
loans, and the amount of money used
to purchase stock for him. The deposit
during the wears mentioned ranged
from 81 .2G0. 600 10 S400ue0. Senator
Ouay's loans were shown to ba rs great
as 1856. 600 IN one period Of SIS r9onrhS
Occasionally, tine witness said, smaller
and inadequate payments Of IN
terest by Senator Quay We're shown
hut generally there was nothing to IN
dictate that ie paid for the use OF the
hank's money While MI THESE figures
were going IN counsel for senator QUAY
sat silent ana motionless listening 10
the monotous routine OF question and
answer. This was Ia pursuance of an
understanding that the defence objected
to every answer that the objection was
oyerruled aud an exception noted. This
is for future use in a higher court, II
necessary,