The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-08

she at one time had a deposit or $lo'- 900, and that there was not at any time any other deposit credit m net name in the Oberlin bank.
 He specified several checks of Mrs. Chadwick's on the Oberlin bank which had been presented at times when she had no funds in the bank. He nao never seen the checks and they had never to his knowledge passed through the regular channels of business at the bank Judge Wing on cross examina- tion elicited the fact that the witness was not the bookkeeper and did not have charge of accounts. The witness became badly confused in his state- ments and admitted that he did not know at the time the checks were drawn whether or not Mrs. Chadwick had money in the bank.
 Court adjourned until afternoon.
 The greater part of the afternoon was consumed by the examination or MT. Avery It was cross examination. then redirect examination, then cross examination once more; the redirect, and all of 1t dry stun.
 It was the object of Judge Wing who conducted the cross examination in behalf of Mrs. Chadwick to dis credit as far as possible the statement made by the witness at the morning session of court that there had not ap- peared on the books of the Oberlin bank during the time that he acted as assistant cashier, any entry 10 the credit of Mrs. Chadwick and that she had not at any time any deposit in the bank with the exception of once when she had $10.o00 tfere.
 Witness Confused.
 The lawyer and thel witness waded through labyrinth of technfcalit'es relating to banking in general and the books of the Oberlin bank in par ticular and the witness finally dis covered on the general journal of the bank an entry showing that Mrs. Chadwick had received and discounted a note of s10.000. Then ensued a long wrangle as to whether or not this was a credit. The witness became badly confused at times and announced that it was a credit and then declared that 1t was not a credit. He asserted that it was "an item of credit" but not ne- cessarily credit.
 Then District Attorney Sullivan would resume his direct examination and the witness would assert that there was no credit to Mrs. Chadwick on the books. Then Judgo Wing W ,uld get him to admit that "it might be cred it" and all three would once more swing around the circle ot credit 'ftems of credit" discounts" "ledgers'' and Journals"
 The matter finally became so con- fusive that Judgs Tayler asked sev- eral questions for his own enlight- ment; it was finally shown that one item of $10,000 and nne of $5.0o0 were on the books to the credit of Mrs. Chad wick.
 ~ Az t.nxs fxn An xtxa Oberlin bank, was so nervous when he took the stand after :r. had been va- cated by Avery that he could not sit In his chair. He stood up and leaned over the end of Judge Tayler's desk up- til the judge suggested that it would be we'll for him to sit down. When he adopted the idea of Juoge Tayler he perched himself on the outside of his chair and twisted and untiwsted his | legs.
 He was shown number of tht checks drawn by Mrs. Chadwick on the Oberlin bank certified by Beckwith and Spear and asked by the district at- torney if he had ever seen them be- fore. No. I never did"
 Did you see them down in my cf- fce?" asked District Attorney Sulli- van.
 Let me look at them again" said the witness. He scanned the notes closely and then said: T don't know whether ever saw them or not" He testified that the entry giving credit to Mrs. Chadwick for $10.000 was in the handwriting of Cashier Spear and that the deposit slip for the same aomunt was also in Spears hand writing.
 Robert Lyons, receiver for the Citi- zens National Bank of Oberlin was the last witness of the day. He said that the books did not show that any ac- count existed by which Mrs. Chadwick could draw a check on the bank. All the accounts of the bank balanced with the exception of that with the First National Bank of Cleveland, where was discrepancy of about $27,00o in favor of the Cleveland institution