Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-03

HIS MEMORY Is RATHER BAD
says ue signed psI.e Contract with
Stout and Letter TO
pcyton.

The Stout case was continued today.
The principal witness. J. ~. Hedges.
avcrrcd that the note u 1850 deposited
In the bank with his name attached. Il
forgery and that the signature IL not
his.
This witness was shown his signature
In one Of the books OF the bank. and
said he did not believe II to be his sig.
nature.
The witness admitted having poor
memory. and under the croas-cxnm.
ination by Dickson. he gave several
confused answers.
The proceedings yesterday afternoon
after the News" went To press were
A. n. JONES.
A. u, Jones was recalled and stated
from the books the itrms which made
up the Indebtedness of Mr. Stout on
May ., 1885 Personal Indebtedness.
E.0i.3g. indebtedness ~ Chambers and
aiuutt. tgs3. 90. Indebtedness Of tho
Tempest uOld Mining company, 81.
1861 These itctna made up the total
of N.ao2.Gi, termed the ovcrdrnfi
In July the oyrrdraft ~ Mr Stout
was reduced By the amount % the
Hedges note tg.sso.
q. H. PFouTz.
q. II. PfoutE was sworn: lives In Salt
Lake city. was Interested In mining
venture some years ago with Mr.
Stout
AR Dickson objected once more to
evidence relating to any othur point
than 10 those specified IN tho indiot.
inent ana 10 the statement " the
prosecuting attorney that the whole
ease depended upon proving the fairity
uf the alleged false and FORGED note.
and that the defense could have dc.
fuandcd o bill OF particulars. had not
the attorney made the statement nA 20
wha, particular facts the government
would rely on. In frVving IT, ease, To
Introduce other evidence would he To-
take the defense by surprise.
Mr.. Mhlttcniorc argued that no hill ~
particulars had been called for by the
defense and therefore none had - be
given but that the prosecution expect
cd TO prove that false entries had boon
made even though Il should turn out
that the note Itself was not forged. n
By any collunivc procedure whatever.
even Though fnch eollusion dld
rot amount 20 forgery. ftiAn en-
try had bnen made. the case would be
made out.
The court held that at the demurrer
hAhANA WV MffNN NANINf Tue prosecutor
had IN order 60 get u ruling OF the
court. stated that the prosecution ~
He'd upon proving the fairity OF the
note. and hence the prosecution would
be held 20 bringing Soldcnce upon that
point. Hut the evidence now SQUAT a.
be introduced was not objectionable,
inhHmuch 10 II only tended 10 show by
previous entries made. the intent 81 the
defendant IN making this particular en-
Try and IN drioaitlng the note In qura-
tion. The objection to the testimony
was 0vcrruied. and the Witness pr0-
eecded' lie Identified a check given
him by President Stout In the Interest
Of ths Tempest Gold Mining company.
cfuHs-eNamined by Judgo Powers
Witness had known Stout for twenty
years They had been friends IAN isss,
were not friends now. Witness was not
particularly Intimate with Bank Ia
amincr Whitman. had asked him
Just before making The July report. the
amount of stoutra indebtedness; he
answered about $4,000. didn't know
how Wightnian got the Hedges note.
saw the amount of the note on the
book had not talked about tho ilcdFcH
note. because Directors Wallace. puy-
ton ana lihumgurtcn had asked him not
To do 10, They said they wanted Ia IN
yeHtigate H. "Wlghtmnn showed mo
the note before the report was COM
pleted, lie said he got II out 0f the
place whore the notes We're usually
kept" wiHhtnian had the note. The
directors wanted to test the validity
OF the poto. '"rho first man" Haid
Jones. "who said he doubted the valid.
ny of the Hedges note was poyton.
Wighiman showed the note 20 the d.
fectofn Ia my presence, but l had seen
Il IN the afternoon before the meeting
~ the diIectora that evening. wight.
man asktd ~. What was the matter
a. l.Na a a
know. aud didn't think there wan any
thing the matter with H. but when !
saw II l became convinced that II was
not Hedges signature. I know II was
wrong when ] told WHITMAN II was
all right htoutt was my friend at the
titne. | put the note In stouttu account
ana gave him credit for II. took
stoutis oath to the report after be-
lieycd the note was forged"
Judge powcrd-'fOu never asked him
whether there was anything wrong
about n, and yet you were his friendf'
yes. Wlghtman took the note 10
Wells. Fargo 4 Co. Stout asked mo
tended 20 hunt for Il, but told Stout
couldn't ind H."
Then you He'd. did your asked
Powers.
well. no, ia hardly put II that
way" replied Jones,
~"
''Bccause the board had asked me TO
say nothing about Il. I made the
Hnnrch or pretended search, IN order
10 mialead him. l told the board
Stout was looking for the note, but
do not remember that I told them the
note was forged, when Wightmnn
talked TO me about II he called II a
dummy notei' by that l inferred he
thought Il a forgery. Wighunnn told
the board the note was false and flcti-
tlous. l saw Wightman compare tho
signatures on the dummy note and
another note, but ! said nothing 10
Stout about that either, although
know there was g0ing TO be a meet |
inE Of the board OF directors 10 exam |
Inc the bank and the Hedges note. |
WHITMAN had never seen Iledgos'H |
SIGNATURE before that | know Of, and |
yel he compared the notea and said |
that one was q dummy"
witnesses oyerdraft was on July LIST, |
SC. isa, less $1,000 on a stock motto de- |
posted. the books OF the bank did not |
show that the bank owed witness any |
thing because his salary was drawn on
account,
Judge Powers said that II IL were true