Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-18
RULINGS FOR QUAY.
FIRST CRUMB OF COMFORT GIVEN
TO THE DEFENCE.
CASE WILL GO TO THE JURY.
This Made Certain by Decision to
Admit All That Accountant Gold
Favor of Defence.


Goldsmith, the Commonwealth expert
accountant. was on the stand all day in
the trial Of Senator Quay. making state
men,s Of fact that are apparently damag
ing TO the defendants side Of the case.
Goldsmith Is the main witness for the
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 q number OF
typewriter sheets containing figures that
he had gathered from the various books
relating to the deposit Of the State Urea
surer He swore TO the correctness Of his
work, and then the District Attorney
formally offered the paper In evidence.
This was objected 10 by the defence, on
the ground that such a paper is not tes-
timony 1t was insisted that the books
themselves should be placed before the
witness, and his statements uttered from
what he saw entered i'm them. The Judge
decided IN favor Of the defence, thus
giving that side the first piece OF COM
fort it has experienced since the trial
gained this point. the paper was practi-
cally I'm evidence. with Goldsmith using
It's contents in framing his answers to
the District Attorneys questions. When
the quay lawyers objected TO this they
were met by the judges explanation that
while the paper could not be used "a
sworn evidence, the witness might use 10
TO refresh his memory. one effect Of all
this was 10 make IL certain that the case
will now go 10 the jury. there having
been some doubt on this point up to the
decision to admit all that Goldsmith
might have to say.
SECOND QUAY RULING.
Just before the close Of the days pro-
ceedings there was another ruling by
Judge Biddle I'm favor Of the defence,
which may have a bearing on the future
Of the case. The statute of limitations
has been pleaded time and again by SEN
atOr Quay's lawyers as bar to much of
the testimony presented by the Common
wealth. As Mr.. quay was indicted on
November Il. 1893, the two years allowed
by the statute for prosecution would eX-
tend back only 10 November II. 1896 On
this basis Mr.. Watson has frequently
urged Judge Biddie to exclude mention
OF transaction dating back to 1895. when
Mr.. Quay was State senator. The court
has uniformly held i'm effect that the sta
tute OF limitations does not affect the
evidence. but does affect the crime The
District Attorney pointed ont that he al
hges the defendants guilt during the two
years the law confines him TO, and 10
prove this the cOrrObOrative evidence of
the previous years should certainly be adj
mitted. Judge Biddle decided against the
Commonwealth. and the Quay lawyers
We're very happy. lie ruled that the evil
dence should be confined 10 the conspi-
racy alleged, and not relate 10 some other
conspiracy.
The lawyers for the defence claim that
the decision practically rules out figures
prior TO November II. 1896.
Mr. Rothermel says its effect Will be TO
prevent him from Offering much Of the
evidence he hoped to present.
FIGURES FROM BANK-BOOKs.
All day long Mr.. Goldsmith read out
figures taken from the bank books. en-
biacing the various settlement periods Of
six months each, dating back to October
81. 1898, showing the amount of the State
deposit. the amount loaned 10 Senator
Quay during each six months, the amount
Of interest allowed the State on that por-
ton Of the State deposit apparently not
amount Of interest, If any, the Senator
paid on his loans. and the amount of
money used to purchase stock for him.
The deposit during the years mentioned
ranged from 81 10000 10 10000. Senator
Quays loans were shown TO be as great
as $4,000 in one period OF six months.
Occasionally, the witness said smaller
and inadequate payments Of interest by
Quay were shown. but generally
there was nothing TO indicate that he
paid for the use OF the banks money.
While all these figures We're going in.
counsel for Senator Quay sat silent and
mouonless, listening to the monOtonous
routine of question and answer This was
In pursuance Of an understanding that the !
defence objected TO every answer, that |
the objection was oyerruled, and an ex- |
,eption noted. This is for future use I'm a |
higher court, II necessary.