Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-03-20
MANY CHECKS IN EVIDENCE.
In tho Suit OF the National Dredging G
vs.. the Farmers Hank.


In the Suit OF the National Dredging Co.
vs.. the Farmers innh.
Argument as TO the admission OF the
interview between President George
q. Barker Of the National Dredging
Co., and Thomas 10. Young, cashier of
the FaTmefa bank, relative 90 why
the bank paid altered checks presented
by William II. OhuTohman, in the case
of the National Dredging Co., VI.
Farmers Bank, resulted in the court
ovorruling the objection and allowing
Mr. Barker TO testify that Mr.. Young
said the bank cnshed the ceoks because
10 had faith Ia what Mr.. Ohurohman
said. The following checks we're
ordered In evidence, twenty five TO tho
the. cunningham hardware Go. two TO
the Labanon Chain Works; min 3ty.
niue 10 ii. III. Ferguson, Mobile, Ala
bnma three TO O. W. Fowler, Master
Mechanic; twenty-five TO Adam Glass,
Mobile Furniture store hity-one 60 a.
Ia. Marigold, Hhir chandler; twenty
seven to A. A. Molettc, supplies ;
thirty seven to James Mophillipe
Grocery Co, Mobile; forty-iou 90
Mohler Changer, Mobile, for repairs
&c boats and dredges; twonty eight
to the Mobile Drug 90. fifty
i've TO Ollinger 81 Bruce Dry Dock
Co. fity-one 20 Richardson God
dost; ten to James Mophlilips,
Mobile, ALA. one 90 h. n. Saunders g.
Co. 10 pay bill fifty to the Standard
oil 90. twenty two to the Southern
Logg, Cart and Supply 90. one to
tho Southern Supply %. two to John
j.. Mestman, engineer OF q tug boat
eleven TO Woodward a Bro, Whining
ton; twenty 10 Woodward, Might a.
Co., New Orleans. Mr.. Barker
identified his signature TO each Of the
checks
Mr.. hilles demanded the books OF
the Farmers Bank to show that all of
tho checks had been paid by it. Court
discharged the jury and adjourned the
court until this morning TO allow the
attorneys 10 compare the checks with
the books Of the bank.
During the recess between yesterday
afternoon and this morning, counsel
for the defence having compared the
l07 checks, offered yesterday, with the
books of the bank, today presented a
list of tho checks as they were received
and naid by the bank.
Mr, Hillos offered the altered checks
in evidence and Mr.. Ridgely objected
TO their admission.
The court gave each side five
minutes IN which TO argue this point.
Mr.. Ridgely said that the altered
checks were tho basis of the PLAINTIFF
suit and IL was incumbent 20 show
that they had sustained q loss. IA,
said they had not shown that The
payee named 10 the checks had moi
received the money. This alteration
he said, was not vicious alteration
and as yet the plaintiff had proved n,
loss aud the checks we're not ndmissi
ble.
ME. Hilles oonteuded that the plain
tin was suing 90 recover money drawn
from ita account through altered
checks and that the burden Of proving
that the payee received the mnney Il
upon the defendant. Mr.. HigQin,
made similar contention.
Ms. Ward replied that the check
were not material in the case until !
loss is shown. lie said it would be al
injustice TO shift the burden of prov
ing this loss upon tho defsndaniis s a
this stage, when the plaintiff has al
the evidence TO show whether th,
payee received the money or not.
The majority OF she court overrule,
the objection and admitted the check
in evidence. Mr. hilles then oiIe5e,
Ia evidence the checks OF the Nationa
Dredging Co., which had not beef
altered. The defence objected en- th
ground Of irrelovancy, and the moi
was sustained boy a majority OF th
court.
continued on nith pagel