Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-04-18
! WHAT THE BOOKS DISCLOSE.

Expert Accountant Goldsmith Telling
Of Quay's Transactions.
AMOUNTS OF MONEY SECURED
BY HIM FROM THE PEOPLES
BANK AND THE LIMITED SUMS
OF INTEREST PAID-JUDGE
BIDDLE MAKES A DECISION
! THAT MAY PROVE IMPORTANT
TO THE DEFENSE.
Y Philadelphia, April 17.-Mr. Gold
smith, the Commonwealth expert &C
countant was on the stand all day in
the trial OF Senator Quay, making
statements of fact that are apparently
damaging to the defendants SIDE OF the
case.
Goldsmith is the main witness for
the prosecution and it is through him
that all OF the documentary evidence
is to be presented This witness has
examined the banks books thoroughly
and he came into Court this morning
with a number Of typewriter sheets
containing figures that he had gath
xered from the various books, relating
mainly to the deposit of the State
Treasurer and the account of Senator
Quay.
He swore to the correctness of his
work and then the District Attorney
formally offered the paper in evidence.
This was objected to by the defense
on the ground that such paper IS
not testimony 1t was insisted that
the books themselves should be placed
before the witness and his statements
uttered from what he saw entered IN
Y them.
At different periods between October
81. 1893, to October 81, 1895, the State
deposit ranged from $4,000 to ST.
999, 356.06, and Senator Quays loans
! ran as high as $SS6,0O0. On a majority
of the loans no interest had apparently
been paid Senator Quays counsel did
not attempt to interrupt witness, 1t
being the understanding that all the
questions are objected to, the objection
overruled and exceptions noted.
\ Interest amounting to $5,270 was
shown to have been paid ]. w. Nor
rison, a former State Treasurer
Counsel for the defense strenuously OBJ
jected to the admission of this testl-
mony, stating that Morrison was not
included in the charge of conspiracy
: against Quay. This brought on a long
contention which was finally ended by
Judge Biddle rendering decision
against the District Attorney, which,
according to the Quay counsel, rules
out as evidence all matter antedating
the statute of limitations period, No
vember II, 1896.
y The first question put to Mr.. Gold
smith was relative to his identification
of paper showing the results OF his
examination Of the bank books. These,
he said, were correct. District Attor-
ney Rothermel offered the paper in evil
dence but was met by strenuous OBJ
jections by Mr. Shields for the defense.
He maintained that the paper itself
was simply an explanation of the wit
ness theory or opinion as to what the
books showed. District Attorney Roth
ermel replied at length, and quoted sew
\ eral opinions in support of his conten-
ton that where the books in case are
voluminous it is allowable to permit an
expert witness to be examined on the
results he has obtained from the exam
nation of the books.
Judge Biddle sustained the objection
saying that such paper takes the same
position as the deposition of Witness
and cannot be admitted on the same
rule of procedure that excludes a de-
position.
The effect of this decision is to re-
uuire the physical examination of all
the entries in every book. 1t will I'M
= doubtedly add some days to the length
of the trial.
The District Attorney asked the wit
ness how many semi-annual settle
ments for call loan borrowers the books
showed. Objected to by the defense
and objection overruled Mr. Goldsmith
answered that April 80 and October 81
were settlement days. The defense also
objected to the witness disclosing what
the books showed with respect to the
Commonwealth deposits for the pc
Rod ending October 81, 1897. This was
likewise overrued. The answer was:
s.From May to June Is, S525,000; June
Is to June 10, s555000; June 10 to Oc-
tober rs, S565, 10000; October rs to Oc-
tober 81, s560,0O0."
what was the amount of the loans
to M. S. Quay during that period?"
\ .$1S5,S 55.12."
Glow much stock do the books show
was purchased for Mr.. Quay during that
period?"
objected to by the defense on the
ground that the entries in the books
are not evidence against Mr.. Quay.
The court decided that such questions
are admissible as tending to prove a
conspiracy among Hopkins, Quay and
! Haywood.
The answer to the question was:
"$143,2 200"
These purchases were on October IS
and 81, 1895, two blocks of United Gas
Improvement were purchased for s14,-
$780, December Is, 1896. three hundred
! shares Metropolitan, s22,33750; June
II, 1897, two hundred Metropolitan,
$21,975: June II, 1897, one hundred
Sugar, $12,4S750; August SO, 1897, five
hundred Metropolitan, 1850; total,
$143,200.
estate whether the books show that
M. S. Quay paid any interest on these
loans which you have detailed" said
the district attorney.
Objected to: objection overruled.
"None whatever, either on these
loans, which were used for the pur-
chase of stocks, or for loans which