Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-04-15
The RED BOOK"
Still a Great Bone of Contention
in the Quay Trial.
us.IIIst."
Desperate Fight Of the Prosecuting
Attorney for Its Admission.
rulIy As Desperate Endeavor oil The Defence
10 Keep II Out.

pbiladeIphfa, April 14.-Persistent,
keen and brilliant argument between
District Attorney Rothermel on the
ono side. Messrs. Watson, Shapley ana
shields on the other. upon the admls-
sion Of testimony which may go a
lone way TO establish the alleged quit
or E,x-Vnited States Senator quay
was the feature of today's trial of that
distinguished defendant and it culmi-
mated in Il decided victory for the
prosecution. The Red Book" found m
cashier Hopkins desk after his sui
eide, and upon the admission OF winch
the commonwealth 50 largely rests its
ease. was the shaft the district attof-
nav aimed at the defence. to pave the
wav for the final effort to introduce
the book itself, in presenting expert
testimony to prove that the book was
nacessariiy a book o. the bank as ac-
counts in the book admitted under the
courts ruling would be made intelligi-
he by the Red Book"
Never Goldsmith. an expert account
ant was the witness upon which the
commonwealth depended to accomplish
its contention. After four hours of eX-
animation and cross-examination, IN
terspersed with argument. TINS much
was sworn to by the witness: Two ac-
counts Of upwards of $1,000 IN the reg
ular books were incomplete ana mac
curate unless explained by entries IN
The Red Book" one was an item Tor
Sl5l9, entered in the individual ledger
TO the credit of the person who receiV-
ed II. The witness was not permitted
10 designate the person by name. he
found this item on the stub of the
cashiers check book but what it rep
resented he could not say until he had
examined the calculations in the "Red
Rnok." Here he found the amount en-
tered and the indications that it had
been paid by the cashiers check on
Nov. L. 1897.
Another item of s5532.10 he found in
he regular book dated May "a 1894,
and found the same item in the RED
Book dated Oct. 80, 1894. He stated
there were other entries in the Red
Book" which explained transactions in
The regular book but the two instances
specifed were the only ones in which
he could reach an accurate conclusion
as to their nature and purpose
Mr.. Goldsmith said that when he first
oprned the Red Book" he did not con-
slider it a book of the bank. but when
he compared the calculations entered
on its pages with the transaction in the
other books he was forced to consider
il a book of the bank. He explained
this by saying that prior to 1891. cal
culations such as appeared in the "lted
Book" were regularly entered in the
ledger, but since then the Red Book
had been substituted and fulfilled and
fixed the same results.
During the crOSS-cXaminatiOn OF IN"
witness ne testified to a page winch was
missing The defence repeatedly endeaN-
urcd to get from him the statement thai
there might have been figures and words
on that page which would clearly explain
The entries on The other pages ana that
the book as il now stands is unreliable.
This was ruled out, following an obJec-
ton by the district attorney. This would
seem To indicate that when the final effort
to present the book in evidence comes, to-
morrow the defence will make another
determined opposition to it on that
ground, even if the court should decide
thar with relation to the transactions
testified to il is a book of the bank.