The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1899-04-15
QUAY CASE
Damaging Testimony Intro
Gsced Against he De
sendants.

sennanlS.
Philadelphia. April 1i-Pres acnt. keen
and brilliant argument between district
attorney Rothermel on the one side and
Messrs watson. shapeley and Shields on
the other. upon fte omission OF testi-
mony which may go a long way to estab-
nsh the alleged guilt OF ex-senator quay
was the feature OF todays trial Of that
distinguished defendant. and it culminat-
ed in a decided victory for the prosecution.
Inc red book found in Cashier Hopkins
desk after his suicide. and upon the adj
mission OF which tl,.. commonwealth so
largely rests its case, was the shaft the
district attorney aimed at the defense.
To pave the way for ne final EFFORT 20
introduce the book itself he succeeded
after frequent clashes with opposing coun-
sd sometimes bitter and personal. I'm pre-
sentng expert testimony to prove that
the book was necessarily book of the
bank. as accounts in the books admitted
under the courts ruling would D. intelH-
gible by the red book.
a
Rothermei read TO the court q statement
of what he intended to prove. The expert.
he said. he'd made a through cxaminn-
tlon of ala the books in ihe case lie found
that previous To April 30. 1891. tho Peoples
bank paid interest o nthe state deposit to
ure state treasurer and that records of
such payments were kept in "a regular
way on the books Of the bank. After
April 30. 1891. when Mr.. Hopkins appeared
ON the scene, a new system was adopted
ed This entitled the addmi sion ot anoth-
er boolS-now known as the rcd book-to
the books heretofore kept by the bank.
Meyer Goldsmith, an expert account
ant, was the witness upon which the COM
monweath depended to accomplish its
contention. During the whole course of
the experts examination objection after
objection was made by the defense ana
as frequently overruled by Judge hid
die, while the district attorney In logical
sequence drew from the witness his con-
clusions as to the book, based. upon
comparison Of what was written on its
pages witn what appeared IN the other
books Two accounts out OF upward Of
900 in the regular books We're incom-
plete and Inaccurate unless explained by
entries i'm the red book One was an item
Of 81 519 entered I'm the individual ledger
to the credit OF the person who received
H. The witness as not permitted 10 des-
lgnate the persons by name. He found
this item on the stub OF the cashiers
check book, but what It represented he
could not say until he rad examined the
calculations in the red book. Here he
found the amount entered and the indica-
lions IL had been paid by the cashiers
check on November H. 1897. Another item
OF S5197l0 he found in tho regular book
dated May a. 1894, and found the same
item i'm the red book dated October 30,
1894 He stated that there were other en-
tries In the red book. w4icn explained
transactions IN the regular book, but tho
two instances specified We're the only
ones in which he had reached accurate
conclusions as to their nature and purpose.
Mr.. Goldsmith said that when he first
opened the red book he did not consider
Il abook of the bank, but when he com
pared the calculations entered on its page
/ with transactions on the other book, nc
was forced to consider Il a book of the
bank He explained this by saying prior
to 1891 calculations such as appeared ir
the red book We're regularly entered II
tho ledger but since the rcd book ha'
been substituted and fulfilled and iiXe'
the same results.
During the cross examination Of wit
ness which was conducted by Mr. Shieldi
he testified to a page which was missing
The defense repeatedly endeavored e
yet from him the statement that ther'
might have been figures and words OF
that page which would clearly explain
the entries on the other pages and tina
the book as Il now stands IS unreliable
This was ruled out. following an oh
lection by the district attorney thi
would seem TO indicate that when the Il
nal effort TO present the book In ev
dence comes tomorrow, the defense wi
make another opposition TO It, even II IA
court should decide shat with relatio
to the transactions testified TO, It Is
book OF the bank.
During all the examination touching q
the book, with the exception of the tW
D items mentioned no intimaton Of a
e amounts or names was allowed to reac
! the Jury. THE prosecution all along, hoy
e ever, has alleged that this book "
show that Cashier Hopkins computed d
G terest on stats funds aud deposited q
r. ,,,o,,.,, Ia geuator Ouay's credit