The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1906-03-30

was competent, and admitted 1t. Theml
Attorney Craine read the resolutionll
Of the directors passed on May s.
1900. appointing a teller at a salary Of
$e5 month. Leroy Coyle was also
named as a bookkeeper at that time
The appointments we're for one year.
Mr.. Wagner's evidence was impor-
tant as showing Van Horn to be a
regular employe of the bank. He was
not cross-examined.
w. II. HoOVED CALLED.
w. H. Hoover, of New Berlin, was
next called. He said he was about
the bank during the last two years.
He saw Van Horn there acting as
both teller and bookkeeper. Bachtel,
the witness said, was cashier. Hoover
was not cross-examined.
HARVEY P. PACKER.
Harvey 2. Packer, a bookkeeper for
w. l.. Davis, vice president of the
Canton State bank was called and
said he was employed by Davis for
13 years. He was shown a check
which he identified This he deposit
ed in the Canton State bank. 1t was
the one which figures in the indict-
! ment. On "a note attached to this
was the. word "holG." Ipaaccker made
out the check to himself and endorsed
! it In the absence of Davis, supposed
to be the real maker. and took 1t to
the bank, together with the deposit
| check.
| The witness was shown the stub on
the check book. The defense objected
strenuously to the reading of the stub
which was allowed under objection.
The word 'hold" was written by the
witness an hour or two after the de-
| posit was made He went to the bank
and asked an employe to pin the slip
marked "hold" upon it after the bank
had closed.
The witness could not remember
when he saw the check the second
time. so a second check, a duplicate
of the first, was shown him. This
was made May 1, 1905, to replace the
original. Packer said he went to- the
bank with the second check to take up
the first one. The first check, made
Dec. %, 1904, the deposit slip and the
check made May 1, 1905, were offered
in evidence, together with the slip
marked hold" All except the second
check were admitted under exceptions,
which we're sustained in the case of
the second check.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
When court reconvened at 1 o'clock
Tuesday afternoon Packer was put
on the stand again and cross-exam-
ined by Attorney Siddall. He was
questioned at length as to the nota-
tions on one of the check-book stubs.
Witness could not tell where Davis
was when he (Packer) drew the check
on Dec. %. 1904. The checks, he said,
were left blank and signed by him.
Attorney Siddall persisted in declar-
ing that Packer did not appear pos
tive as to anything, but had mere
ly used his best recollection. To TINS
side remark Attorney Craine objected
and the court sustained this objection
Davis. it appeared, drew up a check
on a stone company for the purpose
he admitted on redirect examination
to give credit to Davis personal ac-
count and not the account of the stone
company.
RECEIVER BARBOUR ON STAND
James G. Barbour, one of the re-
ceivers of the Canton State bank, was
next called to explain about the book,
keeping system in vogue at the bank
He described the various books anG
records, which be brought along.
He was asked to produce a daily
ledger and brought up book. He
said it was the daily ledger. He
turned to an entry of Dec. %, 1904
EIe said Van Horn made the entries
on page 286. Attorney Craine Offered
the book and entry as evidence. This
was strenuously objected to by the
defense, which sought to interrupt thl
direct examination so as to cross eX'
anime. The court ruled against At
torney William A. Lynch, and de
ciined to admit the entry at the pres
ent time.
Barbour was shown another book
the journal, and identified an entry
made there by Van Horn correspond
ing with the entry in the daily ledger
1t was soon after this that the ques
tion of admitting this in evidence
was brought up. This precipitated thu
above move on the part of the defense
to knockout the indictment.