The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-06-15

which MI. Royal said In. his opening
statement on Monday. he would prove rove
had been tempered with vt the last trlal
and the date changed
Mr.. Meredith now took charge OF the
witness and he questioned nun rs 70
S9 he had sad ths Wes
true. and that Mr.. Allen had formerly
been IN business on his own account. on
Main Street
no trouble between himself and Marks
| UP to juno is, 1903, when the latter had
4 written letter to the creditors Of the
chant, had Informed witness Of the letter.
He had finally COTTON n copy of 1t from
Ihalheimer IN Baltimore, and Mr.. Mere
admission that he had signed an agree
! ,nent with Thalhclmcr not to sue Marks.
T. he should be given n copy of the
letter written BY Marks on June IS, 1913.
month or six weeks before going to see
Marks about the letter after he had
known of It's contents.4At this point, tho
n Eopr Of 3do1 two oeloe aysg arrlve the
Afternoon Session.
Promptly at ago O'Clock. the trial was
resumed, and Mr.. Meredith proceeded to
question MIR. Busby, and the witness said
Mr.. Allen had commenced work for him
on April 10, 1908 Marks had come to the
store of the witness on July sth, and they
had later gone together to BloombergS
office to get copy Of the Marks letter.
Bloombers said he did not have a copy
OF the letter. and witness could not get
from him he nature of the communities
ton. Bloomberg saying all that was CONF
tanned In the letter was for the benefit of
the witness.
II told Boomberg wanted to know
all about the Natter said the witness,
and that l did not desire to put any
Human n wit n ~
he held in his hand financial statement
as to the affairs of the witness about
Wheh the was ueNio 1aes he
showed that BusbS owed on that date
over 13s 300, not Including memorandum
son The memory v Of the V Witness ese Was not
clear as to This paper and he said lie
could not tel | about t, the amounts without
in3answer to a question by Mr.. Hunton.
how much he owed on September !. 1903.
Memory Again Tested.
OF January eo, 1901 1870 but witness said he
paper but he sona not ans
the Items. Again Mr.. Smith questioned
the witness and he examined him as TO
itors for extension, Tho lawyer under
N, Wnapss a h p po a e Of a the
said he had determined upon line, OF
action, in his own mind on June Goth. but
he had not made his d let known
duced the testimony of the witness on this I
point at the former trial, and 1t was
found {, that he vas vas quoted as DENYING that
power of attorney was given
MIR. Lucas Questioned.
Mr.. Busby was excused at 4;25 o'clock
having been on ths stand for nearly two
a1sstionea y Mr.. Royaiii, w. INV
s asn a R.SYPs h4naed hm as
by the witness as Of June IS, 1903, and he
read IL to the jury at Mr. Royals re-
Witness said he could have made out
sa not bef s1eneF beeanse Re had MT the
though 1t was "as Of June 18th, He
testified that checks for $4,000 given by
kuspyb on met n ~ The q ornng # june
I'D. as In two banks and at the store (
there was more ny,t than enough m1o1ey for
per, which he identified as statement OF 4
inventory as of June 18th.
Mr.; Royal wanted to ask witness as
August, 1903. but objection vas made
and the Jury sent out The adNliaslblill,y
The testimony was allowed and the ques-
lions were answered by Mr.. Lucas, conn
Sci for The defendants noting exceptions
To each. @
The letter OF June nth. addressed to
Dawson, giving him control of Busby's
business, was handed the witness, and he
written In pencil by Dawson and brought
IN by him (Dawson). He, copied y at
ost e ~ b sag he he w sod Se
him 10 sign the paper. He did not know
that Bnsby ever signed the paper,
First He Knew of 1t.
Witness said the first time he knew of
J1awson's authority In the conduct OF Mr..
BuSDy's affairs MfaS on the fof