Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-09
THE CHADWICK CASE
Motion Made to D. scharge
Prisoner from Custody
NOW BEIN Il A RGU ED
JURY EXCUSED WHILE JUDGE
WING MAKES PLEA.
Testimony of Bank Officials Does Not
Agree-Question OF Credit in
the Oberlin Bank.
NOW BEING ARGU ED

CLEVELAND. Ohio, March OF. c.
Doolittle the bookkeeping expert called
yesterday as the first witness for the de-
Tense. occupied the witness stand when
the trial of Mrs. Chadwick was resumed
this morning.
He testified that the entries of $4,000 and
So 900 on the books of the Oberlin Bank
under date of November ). 1903, We're
items of credit to Mrs. Chadwick
Similar entries on the discount register
showed that the two items were regarded
by the bank as being to the credit OF Mrs
Chadwick November 16, 1893, the journal
showed the entry of note of siO,OoO. This
did not appear on the discount register
but the journal entry showed, according to
the witness. that Mrs. Chadwick was en-
titled on that day to $4,000. either in cash
or credit Other entries that date
showed that an item of $4,000 was depos-
tied though it was not specified by whom
If the cash or certified check was given
Mrs. Chadwick on that day. the entries
were entire and covered the TRANSACTIONS III
a proper manner.
The witness testified that the certified
check account on the ledger did not SHOW
that any of the checks he mentioned mad
been issued to Mrs. Chadwick.
On cross-exa mination the witness admit
ted that on the date that $4,000 was en-
tered on the journal as being to tire credit
same amount credited to the account of
Oberlin College. The witness could not
state. from the books. whether it was the
same transaction or not.
A Il. Marshall. vice president of the First
National Bank. was called to identify the
signature of Mrs Chadwick on six notes
which had been paid by her.
Difference in Testimony.
On cross-examina ton he stated that in
banking usage the number identifying a
note should correspond with the number on
the banks discount register. Two of the
notes had been properly I~7nbered and four
of them had not
This evidence was directly opposed to the
direct testimony of Assistant Cashier
Avery and Receiver Lyon of the Oberlin
Bank, who said that Mrs. Chadwick had
neither money nor credit at the bank at
the time any of the certified checks were
issued.
Mr. Doolittle was reconciled for a few
moments to testify to some insignificant
details in connection with the notes and
Judge Wing then declared:
That is all, your honor, we rest our
case"
rs there any rebuttal?" asked Judge
Tayler.
There is none, your honor" said Dis
trict Attorney Sullivan. and the case. so
far as the testimony was concerned, was
over.
1t was announced to Judge Tayler by
the attorneys for Mrs Chadwick that
they desired to enter a motion directing
a verdict for the defendant. Pending the
argument on this the jury was dismissed
with instructions to return at l 80 pm.
Judge Wing asked that the case be
taken from the jury and verdict acquit-
ting the defendant be ordered by the
court on the ground that the indict-
ment did not charge an offense and the
evidence did not prove that she had COM
mitted an offense against the United
States.
The arguments by Judge Wing in sup
port of his motion, and that of District
Attorney Sullivan in opposition, lasted
throughout the remainder of the morning
session of court.
What Indictment Charges.
The Indictment against Mrs. Chadwick
charges her with conspiracy to commit
an offense against the United States by
Illegally certifying checks of the Oberlin
bank.
The attorneys for the defendant made
the words ito commit the point of at
tack. They contended that, inasmuch as
Mrs. Chadwick was not an official of the
bank it was impossible for her to certify
checks. 1t therefore impossible for
her TO conspire with others to commit an
offense which it was impossible for her
to commit as an individual.