The Portland daily press., 1900-08-11

made.
MI Freeman called attention to the
examination OF Mr.. Woodbury. on March
/, 100, In which he said he had endorsed
note on the Bank Of Staten Island due
October 81. 1899. He also called attention
to letter from W. A. Underwood writ
ten October Goth, 1899. in which Mr.
Underwood said there was only one
eourss to be taken and that was to 'shit
before they bit you" and il that note of
the Bank OF Staten Island is not paid Oc-
tober slst, Mr.. Woodbury. must take 1t nm
and begin suit Mr. Merrill objected to
the Introduction Of this letter into the
case. Mr.. Freeman explained that this
letter was introduced with the purpose of
showing that on October 20th, Mr.. Wood
bury had Information which would lead
MN TO believe that this note would not
De paid and therefore had information
mat would lead him to believe at that
time that the firm was not solvent.
Mr.. Freeman also introduced a letter
from Mr. Woodbury. to Mr.. York In
which Dir. Woodbury. wrote that they
would need certain money before Novem-
Der lst. Mr.. Freeman argued that this
showed that Mr.. Woodbury. realized the
condition of his firm. Judge Webb said
that this letter would not necessarily
show that AIr. Woodbury. desired to make
the loan mentioned IN the letter because
rs knew his firm was insolvent.
Mr.. Freeman then referred to more
testimony Of mr.. York given at previous
hearing on which Mr.. York related that
Mr.. Moultons when he retired from the
firm was paid what he had invested in
full leaving the capital Of the firm as
5000. This capital Dir. Freeman said had
been increased by transfer of the profits
to the capital account. AS matter of
fact they had no profits to transfer and
knew Il as far as back as 1890 when Mr.
Moulton withdrew from the firm.
Judge Webb thought that this was go
Ing back too far into the history of the
firm and told Dir. Freeman to conflne
himself more closely to proving the alle-
cations made IN the particular specinoa-
tion which was under consideration.
Mr. Freeman then quoted from testi-
mony Of Mr.. York. with a view OF show
Ing that he had knowledge Of the insol-
venoy of the firm previous TO November
LIST, the date OF the assignment. On quot
Ing from this testimony it was stated
that ar York had ordered the deposits
made on October 81 TO be laid aside. This
date was claimed to Be wrong by Mr..
Verrill, who said it should have been No
vemher lst instead OF October 31st. This
was acknowledged 70 be the fact by the
stenographer who was present.
Mr. Freeman also called attention to
the evidence which showed that the de-
posifs Of the firm had been Withdrawn to
large amount between September 10th
and October 3lst- Judge Webb asked why
this piece OF evidence was brought into
the case.
Mr.. Freeman replied that It was intro
, duced 20 show that the firm had knO WI
edge of It's insOIvent condition. Judge
Webb said that the decrease OF deposits
would not show this. Dir. Freeman said
Il appeared reasonable that the decrease
Z OF deposits was due to the knowledge of
the firm that it was 1nsolvent. Judge
Webb said be didn { want reasons, what
g ne wanted were the facts He said that
+ Mr.. Freeman was unprecedented IN all
matters pertaining to the transactions OF
the firm.
Is Mr.. Freeman now took up the speciflca-
r tions IN the charges relating to the con-
q ceaIment Of assets or the firm and especi-
/ ally regarding the whereabouts of q check
Of s333 Is paid Air. Woodbury. as his sal
q AA1 IS DLr-44rIL "a the OD1hHh NJ AIeF
a company after the firm had assigned
This check was received by Mr.. Woodbury.
November fth. This check Mr.. Woodbury.
stated in his testimony Ia d been paid
S over TO Mrs. Woodbury.. The salary Of
5 AIr. woodbury. Tor August, September
and October had been turned over TO the
: firm The check referred to above had
been received in advance Of the time 1t
81 was due. Mr.. Woodbury. said he hadn {
/ turned this October Salar7 over to the
/ ffa4fs Hanns4En na bad nm
with Mr. York that this salary should be
released. This understanding with Mr.
York was had after the assignment on
Novem Der 1st.
Mr.. Freeman now took up the specif-
cation charging that Mr.. Woodbury. had
concealed the sum of Si25 from the trus-
tee which amount was received from the
sale OF horse. This charge Mr.. Wood
bury had denied Ia his ans wer.
Mr.. Freeman now referred to the evil
dence OF Mr. Woodbury. IN which Mr.
/ Woodbury. had said that he sold the horse
to man whom he did not remember and
the check was made payable to Mrs
/ Woodbury.. though Mr.. Woodbury. said he
owned the horse.
The next specification in the charge
was that Mr.. York had concealed certain
stocks. This was passed over by a brief
reference to Mr.. York S evidence.
MIR. Freeman withdrew Specifications
fifteen and sixteen char ging that false
| oaths had been made.
The next specification was that Messrs.
| York and Woodbury. should be imprisoned
because they had made false oaths in that
| they had not included the claim of the
firm against Edward p. Deering, the
missing cashier of the firm, the claim
amounting to S9000 Mr.. Woodbury. and
| MIR. York in their answers had stated
| that they had no knowledge when the
| schedules were made out and now have
no knowledge that H. r. Deering owed
| his firm 5000 or any amount.
Mr.. Freeman called attention to the
/ testimony of Mr.. York in which he said
That ka haIfoxrad .syhaf, 10 found M, Taaw-