Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-04-20

Il LhA "a LII sssIs lSoCs
the whole bank The question is not
whether the contents of this book are
material or immaterial, but whether it
is book of the bank. The expert
positively swears it is book OF the
bank, and under those circumstances it
is admitted, rs he knows more about it
than | do. -
Judge Biddle also decided to admit
the '.black book" and the "blue
book. "
At noon, the court adjourned until
Monday. ~@
Philadelphia, Pa, April 1.-THE
second week of the trial of ex- United
States Senator Quay, on the charge of
conspiracy, began this morning, with the
Commemorative expert accountant,
Meyer Goldsmith, on tho stand Mr..
Quay, accompanied by his private Sec
retary, came into the court room on the
stroke of 10 O'Clock.
The first question put to Mr.. Gold
| smith was relative to his Identification
of paper showing the results OF his
examination of the banks books.
These, he said, were correct.
District Attorney Rothermel offered
| the paper in evidence, but was met by
strenuous objections from Mr.. Shields,
| for the defence. He maintained that
the paper was simply an explanation of
the witness theory or opinion as to
what the books showed. District At
torney Rothermel replied at length,
and quoted several opinions in support
of his contention that where the books
| in case are voluminous it is allowa-
| BILE to permit an expert witness to be
examined on the results he has obtained
from the examination of the hooks.
Judge Biddle sustained the objection,
saying that such paper takes the
same position as the deposition of a
witness, and cannot be admitted on
the same rule of procedure that ex-
cludes deposition. The effect of this
decision is to require the physical ex-
animation of all the entries in every
book. 1t will undoubtedly add some
days to the length of the trial.
The district attorney asked the wit
ness how many semi annual settlements
for call loan borrowers tho books
showed. The question was objected to
by the defence, and the objection over
ruled. Mr.. Goldsmith answered that
April Both and October 3lst were settle
ment days. The defence also objected
to the witness disclosing what the
books showed with respect to the Com
monwealth's deposits for the period
ended October 3lst, 1897. This was
likewise overruled. The answer was
From May 1st to June 18th, S525, 600 I;
from June 18th to June 10Th, 1866, 600 !;
from June 10th to October 26th, s565, :
600; from October 26th to October 31st,
$3.50, 600.
"What was the amount of the loans
to NJ. S. Quay during that period?"
"s185, S55. -.
How much stock do the books show
was purchased for Mr.. Quay during
that period?''
The question was objected to by the
defence, on the ground that the entries
in the books are not evidence against
Mr.. Quay. The court decided that such
prove conspiracy between Messrs.
Hopkins, Quay and Haywood.
The answer to the question was
"s143, 200."
These purchases were: On October
18th and 21st, 1895, two blocks of
United Gas Improvement were pur-
chased for S14, $50; on December 10Th,
1896, 300 shares of Metropolitan,
s22, 337. so; on June 18th, 1897, 200
shares of Metropolitan, S21, ,975; on
June 11th, 1897, 100 shares of sugar,
S12, 4S7. So; on August Both, 1897, 500
shares of Metropolitan, SCI, $50; total,
S143, 200.
Estate whether the books show that
M. S. Quay paid any interest on those
loans which you have detailed" said
the district attorney.
Objected to, and objection overruled.
| "None, whatever, either on those
| loans which were used for the pur-
chase of stocks or for loans which were
not SO used.
"What amount of interest do the
books show was paid out of Common
wealth funds for the period of six
months?''
Objected to, and objection overruled.
| "S3, 500.3 3d."
"What amount was paid to State
Treasurer Haywood"
"S1,519."
"To whom do the books show the
balance of the interest on State deposit
was paid?"
&c. II. McKee,"
AT this iuncture, Mr.. Shields, in an
earnest Speech. challenged the Com:
| monwealth, in tho interest of public
| Justice, to prove one single transaction
testified TO by the witness. 'This
matter goes to the public, and does i'm
mense harm to innocent mon, he said.
The court: "Your time has not come.
Make your challenge in cross examina-
tiop. The rule OF the administration
of justicB makes it necessary that one
| side shall be heard at time. -
| In answer to question. the witness
| stated that the books show that, of the
State deposit, 20 per cent was used for
the bank without interest, 5000, 000 was
set aside for the use of M. S. Quay
| and interest on the balance was com
| puted and divided between NJ. s. Quay,
B. ]. Haywood and G. II. mckee.
Mr.. Shields, for the defence, asked
| that the answer be stricken from the
record. on the ground that no entries
| in the books warrant such testimony.
"Make him produce, for instance, the
entry showing that 5000, 200, or one
penny, was set aside for Mr., Quay"
| he said.
The judge declined, saying, if the
statements were false, they could be
proven so on cross ss-examination, or
when the defence puts its witnesses on
| the stand.
The witness said the books showed
the following balances due by NJ. S.
| Quay at certain periods during the six
months for which no interest was mid