The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1907-04-27
Verdict for Peak.

concluded Tuesday evening II was
the longest civil trial held here in
many years. The suit was for
accounting, the plaintiff alleging that
the defendant refused to pay his
check for a balance s344.07 deposited
in the bank The defense set up by
the bank was that the plaintiff was
indebted to the bank for greater
sum on account, as it is alleged, of
his having forged two checks against
Godfrey Shull, one for $500 and one
for s6l5, and check against j, E.
Weber for 1885, appropriatIng the
money for his own use. The nature
OF the defense was anticipated and
1T was because of this suspicion upon
the part of the bank officers that the
check was made On the account and
the suit brought. At the same time
suit was brought against Mr.. Shull
( SANDER the petition alleging that
Mr.. Shull charged the plaintiff with
the forgery Of the two checks re-
ferred to.
The sum Of money Involved was, Of
course, TRIVIAL matter either TO Mr.
Peak or to the bank, but the offense
charged in the defense was extremely
serious to both. For this reason an
Interest which has never before b en-
attached to civil suit In this com
munity was manifested In this trial.
The court house was full nearly every
minute Of the trial. many men both
10 this city and from the country
round about attending practically
throughout the whole hearing.
, In story form the transactions
NJ which led to the suspicion Of forgery
~ were as follows: About April /, 1905
a check for 5000 made in favor Of
j. M. Brown, signed "Godfrey W
Snull" and endorsed by ]. NJ. Brown
was presented at the bank and paid
Z A few days later another check 20
s6l5 drawn, signed, and endorsed il
Ne same way was paid by the bank
month or two later when Mr.
US pass book was balanced b.
lated these two checks. 1
Investigation was made at th
and the bank officers being
Jed that they we're f0Tgerie
ked them off OF Mr. Shull's pas
X and several months later mad
corresponding correction on thei
IN books. About the same tim
II. Weber, railroad man, sent b
friend $500 to be deposited in th
IA oank. The officers did not know thI
man and did not have copy Of h
signature. A few days later a chec
against this account for 1856 payabl
N TO self and signed erroGeously j
Weber, was paid. This check wa
subsequently, repudiated by Webe
On the same date deposit OF $2s
was made in the name OF A, v
Davis aud shortly afterwards lh
deposit was withdrawn, At this tin
the officers working in the bank wei
E. M. Taubman, president; W,
Bandon, cashier; Laurence Peal
bookkeeper; aud Robert A. Wilson
assistant bookkeeper. All Of the
men except Mr.. Wilson were sti
working In the bank when the allegt
forgeries were discovered aud Il
matter was discussed among then
Mr.. Wilson ceased to work for Il
bank in May and Mr.. Peak on July
According to Mr.. Peaks testlmoI
the first he heard Of any suspiciC
resting upon him was more than
year later when he was visited
Kansas City by a detective al
shortly afterwards by E. M. Taubm;
president Of the bank. He testifil
that Mr.. Taubman told him th
unless the money was restored reso
would be had to the law. 1t was
this time, he says, that he issued Il
check to withdraw his balance in b
Commercial bank, payment Of whi,
was refused. .
The evidence for the defense
the most part falls under two head
first that tending to oshow that accor
ing to the customs Of the bank, Il
bhusion oflabors, and the metho
N of bookkeeping, the alleged forgerI
might have been committed
Laurence PeaA; and second, th
tending to show from the testlmoI