The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-05
SEEKING TOSHOW
. THAT DIRECTORS
DID NOT DIRECT
Defense Hopes to Prove
Vast Negligence on
Their Part.
BISHOP MADE
SCAPEGO AT
Note on Which Case Hinges Was
for Accommodation Of Charles
Hall Davis-cabaniss Flat
" Gontradicts Other Di-
rectors' Assertions
of Ignorance.
ny 4. II. ". MAcIlRErII.

Il, &
petersburg, May 4.-With the ma
Jority or the directors and other on
GERS apparently attempting to saddle
gu responsibility on him for the con- H
dition of the Appomattox Trust Com
i petty before 1t Went out OF existence,
Iarter R Bishop, former cashier of
mat institution. entered to-day upon B
Inc second session of his trial under Is
Indictment No. for false entry, made
on d discounted note for SoO,6S5 In Al
favor OF Charles Hall Davis. former A
president of the company
batter Former Cashier. Ii
Directors and officers of the defunct
bank composed the witnesses heard
today. With one exception, they batf
tered the former cashier. who sat i'm
perturbabie through it all, ra Their is IL b
ne were one OF the numerous spec Il
tators on hand than prisoner at tho
par. Robert Cabaniss director, .wus
me one exception. He stated that all
the directors knew that Bishop was
In the habit of discountinE notes. The
others said either that they didn't
Know II or that he did so without
due authority from them. All the di-55
rectors testified that they knew moth
ing OF the note for S2O,6S5, discounted
october o. 1905, by Bishop for Davis
until they examined the bank in the
following December. They at once
sought explanation. Bishop remained
silent. Davis offered the required cx-
PLANTATION. lie informed them IL was
testified. that his means had become
exhausted and that he had been forced 4
to make the note In order to cover his
ovcrdrafts In tho bank and to Insure
his credit. But the statement was
not satisfactory. and they requested
him 10 take the note out as soon as
possible, Instead Of being taken out z
it was renewed several times. That
IT had been secured was not discovered I
until lated, when 1t was learned that
he had drawn up a deed OF trust on his
Centre Hill estate, valued at about
$50. 900. X
According to the testimony, the bank
was left to take care of itself, though
IT was great Accommodation for
paper marlteters.
III Whatever the outcome of the present
trial. II may be seen plainly that the
prosecution is reaching out mainly
for former President Davis. whose
name. though he is to be tried sep X
arately was mentioned more often
than that of the man at present on
trial. and in whose defense a big
arrayHof lawyers is even now engaged.
Wilcox & Wilcox are defending Bishop,
while Davis is represented by George
S. Bernard, senior counsel; State Sem
ator Charles Il Iasslter. j ohm L. Lee, 4
of Lynchburg, and Colonel James
Mann, of Norfolk.
t. Lee Makes Defense. is.
When objection was raised late in /;
the day to the testimony of R. T. WIZ "a
son, CLERK of tho State Corporation
Commission. who was to have testified
that the bank officials refused to allow
an examination of the bank, 1t was
MIR. Lee who made tile principal srgu-
ment for the defense. He declared that
"a M
false entry had been made, had not
been established. and that, therefore,.
Mr.. Wilson'S collateral evidence could q
not properly be introduced. Common
wealth's Attorney r, II. Mann is prose
cutting the case vigorously and alone. Il
1t is ra Their singular coincidence that
three NIanns are engaged in the trial, q
one being prosecuting attorney one lis
acting for the defense, and tho third
being IL member OF the jury.
Judge j. II. Mullen is presiding The
first witness called was II. Rives
Hooper. who had been general book
keeper for the old AppomattoN Trust
Company. He said that he often en-
tered discounts and that he entered
discounts on October 5. 1905. the date
OF the alleged offensc. The general
account book was given him to
identify In II appeared the discount
for S31,000. drawn by w L. Young
lie said that the entry OF S506S5 for
Charles Hall Davis could not have
concealed the discount. and later said
that the amount OF the discount should
have gone to Davis.
Then w l., Young. maker of the
rotc In question, was called TO the
chair. He said that he was employed
as bookkeeper by Davis & Davis, ono
of whom is Charles Hall Davis. and a,
that he drew UP the note for Davis at \
the latter's request on September is, h
1905. He admitted that he did not
expect and was not expected to pay
it. as lie had only about 81 900 at the
became OF the note but remembered III
that II was 10 run for three months.
What was the note made ~ he
was asked.
ITO relieve ovcrdrafts." he replied.
lie said that Bishop was present at
the time tho note was drawn up. He
didn't bother himself about subsequent Il
payment. but understood that Davis
had drawn up a deed of trust on his u
Centre Hill estate to secure the note 81
when 1t should fall due. rio thought q
tho note was secure. and that Ii would !f
he paid. The note was made by him I
self. Endorsed by Davis and made nay q
able to Davis. ALL
Knew or Decd Of rcrurt.
". 4. Worth teller OF tho old In /,
stitGt.on, who was or the witness 1.
stand yesterday, was recalled. He nd
.mittcd that no knew OF the deed OF
trust. 1t waa he he admitted, WHICH,