The San Francisco call., 1904-06-10
GRAIN PILES
SUBSTITUTED
Point Is Made in the Trial of
Jacob Eppinger to the Ad-
vantage of the Defense
B0OKKEEPER ON STAND
Iestlfies That During Nine
Years He Never Made Out
One Trial Balance Sheet

According 10 the testimony Of Frank
= Mitchell, who for nine years was
pookkeeper for the firm of Eppinger q
Co.. the management was decidedly
lax There was no live management
put business simply went along" Al
1hough ne had fuIl charge Of the COM
pang books. the witness knew moth
lng ot the financial standing of the
nfm or Of the Pacific Warehouse Com
panN. which was identical with Ep-
pinger d CO. His testimony and the
presentation Of bill rendered cutter
@ Moseiey for the loading OF lots OF
neat on which the Indictment was
found were the features of the day.
Aharles r. Herlitz, who in December
L'V-' was employed as superintendent
Tor Gutter & Moseley. testified IS Ia
having seen the grain mentioned in the
-nolctment taken from the warehouse.
~ hen questioned as 10 lots 50S and 10s
ne admitted that Iot l03 h2G not been
Iut aboard the bark Pierre Lon. but
Tor the sake of convenience lot TO- in
every way Identical had been substi-
intec- This gives the prosecution
point. as IL shows Ihe lot numbers
called for in the warehouse receipts
were not held sacred when dispatch in
loading q vessel was factor.
II was expected shat some sensational
testimony would be given by Mitchell,
but the curious cnes who daily crowd
1ne courtroom were disappointed.
Mitchell stated that the three members
~ The firm, Jacob Eppinger, Herman
Eppinger and Bernard Ettlinger, all
Hok hand IN the management Of the
business. but the employees all looked
t. Jacob Eppinger as the head. Of the
r-m
FIRMS IDENTICAL.
The prosecution next proceeded TO
establish a connection between the
firms NJ Eppinger & Co and the Pa
c-6c Coast Warehouse Company. The
witness stated that the officers Of the
Two concerns We're in the same room
and the same clerks did the work for
both. The witness knew Josua Eppin-
Eer as Cue Of the employees Of the firm
but did not know what he did 10 earn
lls salary he was of the opinion that
Josua attended 10 the correspondence.
but his statement on the point was
very indefinite.
So far ar Mitchell knew, there was no
system of keeping accounts between
the warehouse at Crockett and the Of
flee iu this city. the business usually
being conducted by telephone.
The witness was then shown the bills
presented 70 Cutter & Moseley for the
the checks for 500 in payment for the
same aud identified the handwriting on
the biz as that II one Of the employees
OF the firm. He also identified the
signatures and rubber stamps on the
check
Regarding his books. Mitchell said
that tc the best Of his knowledge they
were never rigidly examined. He had
nothing 70 do with the grain specula-
1iOus and made his entries from
bl0tter furnished by Mr.. Langton.
Josua Eppinger would occasionally look
over the books. but Jacob Eppinger
paid little attention TO them.
LOOSE BOOKKEEPING.
Did YOU make statements TO the
heads 81 the firm al regular intervals?"
was asked.
IT made memoranda Of the check
book" was the reply
Did you ever make out trial bal
ence sheet2"
George Russell. the expert Of the Po-
lice Department on models and dia-
grams was next placed on the stand.
He had elaborate diagrams Of the
warehouses at Crockett and the posi-
tion and number of grain sacks con-
tanned in them. Attorney Ach objected
90 their admission. as explanations
were written on portions Of them. on
cross-eXa mination by Attorney Short
ridge the witness admitted that the
diagrams were made in August. AS
The firms affairs passed into the hands
0f q receiver in June and there had
been much shifting Of grain, the por-
ti0ns Of the diagram relating to the To-
cation of the various piles Of sacks was
objected to- and the objection was
sustained. Russell then explained the
Location of the buildings. their internal
ARIA angement and the area covered By
them. The case viii be continued to-
day.