New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-27
ACCOUNT OvERCERT|F|ED
Carneuie Trust Auditor So Tes-
titles After Stubborn Objection.
TWO HOURS TO GET REPLY
Reichmann's Counsel Fights
Hard. and Funeral Of Mrs. Co.
halan Also Delays Trial.

Tho completion of the trial OF Joseph b
re,chmann. former president Of the Car
nesie Trust COMPANY was postponed al
Least another aay Yesterday. In the morn
Ing Justice Vernon NJ Davis attended the
funeral Of Mrs Daniel F Cohalan and her
u,tle son and al 90 o'clock in the AFTER
moon he suddenly adjourned court 10 at
tend a meeting Of justices at the County
Court House In the three hours tha'
cour, was held John kirkland Clark. as
sistant District Attorney. was enabled 70
pr4sent 20 the jury only one Important
new hit OF evidence
Z p. Ball. auditor Of the Carnegie
Trust COMPANY was the witness IN the
chair AZ the time Mr. Clark had wrestled
with the rules Of evidence for two hours
70 get him 70 admit that the Carnegie Irust
Conooarv had overdra WI its account Win
the National CITY Bank about Slo0"" on
August Is. 1910 In one way after announcer
he ph-ased the question until finally JUS
tice Davis Overruled the objection or John
y StanchAeId. counsel for the defence. ana
the auditor answered Yes" To-day, II the
case is as stubbo-nlv contested. nlght
session OF court will he held. with MD
night as the outside limit Of endurance
The Importance OF Mr.. Balls testimony
arose from the cross-examinatiOn OF Mel
yin " Hutchins. chief examiner or the
state Banking Department. on FRIDAY.
The prosecution on that day had already
read into the record certain shortages IN
the reserve Of the Carnegie Trust COM
parv on August Il and several days FOL
lowing. when Mr. Stanchneld obtained from
NJ Hutchins the assertion that the trust
company or any one OF those days might
have made its shortage good by drawing
upon lis deposits in the National CITY BANK
and the National Bank Of Commerce.
The amounts Of these deposits on the
davs in question a. shown on the books
Of the trust company. were then read into
the record. They ranged from around 500
On % S400Ds the great bulk Of the money
being N the National City Bank.
on August Il the cash reserve OF the rust
company fell So4eo below the legal re-
ouirement. but ostensbly the concern had
on deposit with the National City Bank
s256.c1 against which IL could have drawn
20 make the shortage good. Mr. Ball testi-
fed however. that this account had been
overceruded at the time 10 the extent OF
about $4,000.
Is
loan later changed into a participation
This loan was negotiated on August %
tut before that day. on August Is. the Car
nege Trust Company had sold 10 a. B.
Leach & Co. bond brokers. $1,000 Of New
York City bonds and placed the proceeds
il the National City Bank. The Northern
Bank loan repaired the hole II the trust
company's assets
AZ one point in his examination M. sail
surprised Mr. Clark by saving that on the
dav 10 was made Mr. ReChmann had a.
luded 20 the Northern Bank loan as q par
ficipation Mr. Ball had entered II. how
ever as q demand note. But rev DAYS
later Mr. Rechmann told him. ne SAID
that the entry was incorrect. that the
transaction should have been carried as a
participation and that he had the sanction
of Mr. Hutchins IN ordering he correction
Mr Reichmann Is accused OF having "lSnec
a report 20 the state Banking Department
falsely representing the Northern Sank
loan as q participation.
Mr. Hutchlns. on redirect EXAMINATION,
said he diO nor see this report until after
the trust company had closed its doors.
He denied having told The defendant that
y tho transaction We're carried as Dor
~owcd money on the report the trust COM
many would have 20 close It's doors. He
also denied abiding 70 the eNaCtiOn OF the
demand note ry Joseph . Room for the
Northern Bank as "one OF Robin tricks. ~
Two paragraphs OF letter from the late
{ G. Dickinson. VINO preceded Reichmann
as president Of the Carnegie Trust COM
pany We're admitted IN evidence against
the vigorous protests or NJ StanChf1eld.
The letter. written 20 Mr. heichmann and
addressed fO the directors Of the Carnegie
Trust Companv. charged check kiting' on
Their part Justice Davis admitted The
evidence on the understanding that the
letter was no proof that the practice OF
check kitng" existed The letter was
written IN December 1903