The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-05

1t belonged solely TO the discount com
mittce. He admitted that Mr. Bishop
sometimes discounted paper for him
for small amounts. permissible for
! Regular customers. which was his case.
Witness said that Mr. Bishop dis
counted notes when no one else was
present. but under Instructions.
Why was it necessary 10 tel h:m
not 10 accept new paper when lie had
no such authority?' inquired counsel
for the defense
Because we didn't want 1t even Of
fered." was the reply
Witness admitted that he had been
accommodated'' by the bank, but ONLY
Tor business paper. He SHE'D al the
question whether 1t WAS his duty as
member OF the discount committee
TO examine all paper. in which event
ne would have known about the Young
note, but admitted the Inference. He
said he would not have approved Tho
discounting OF this note
Y Harvey Seward, vice president and
also director of the defrmct concern
was then called. He. too denied MIR
Bishops right to discount paper. ami
went over the same geDund as the
previous witness as to the discovery
OF The Young note.
Upon the discovery Of the note. Mir.
Davis informed the directors. witness
stated. that he had some ..bob-tatl'.
bonds of the Virginia Railway and
Power Company. some preferred stock
OF coupon certificates and some money
from man named IIawes He had
also a contract for the sale of some
water power In Tennessee, which would
be enough to cover the Indebtedness.
Witness had agreed with the others
that the Young paper should be taken
out OF the bank.
With him the witness had three re-
newals OF the note In question, all
made payable to and Endorsed by w.
l.. Young. Agreeing with Mr.. Eigen-
hrun, Mr.. Seward said that after the
middle of the year 1908 1T was the
nolicy of tho bank not TO discount any
new paper except for very small
amounts.
Witness stated that lie called at the
bank About three times a week, when
he would be informed by Mr.. Bishop
That there were only n few renewals
,of notes. lie said that he didn't know
OF any overdrafts except for small
amounts. and that the Young note was
large transaction for the bank.
Juror: Did you ever look in the
discpu; hook2r
Witness replied in tic negative. say
Ing that nc took his information from
, others Tic didn't attend the stock
! holders meeting In 1909. but admit :
! ted that all the acts OF the board were
ratified AMI majority ro-elected.
| AS TO the renewals Of the Young
! note he said that il was u ground
| hog case. with nothing else 10 do,
| though lie admitted that no effort had
| been made TO collect the collateral.
and that q renewal had been made
| without even Knowledge that there
| WAS amy security.
As had done the other witness, he
stated that Mr.. Bishop had no author
| ity to discount paper. and that the
| latter's right had been assumed
| Whether the board Of directors met L
all during 1905 he couldn't remember.
The evidence OF II 4. I4unsford, an
other director. was OF much the same
Character. lie was asked IL the bank
had not been hurt by the Young not,
1or SCI 200 anu replied aiiirmatively
Mr. WillcoN asked him then II n note
lswith an indoraer other than that .,
the maker We're not better than /;
naked ovcrdrafl -
should think So" lie replied.
1oh' NJ Iianrahan. also a director
didn't think lie had ovcrdrawn hin,
seiI though lie might have done CT
Tor small amounts. lie attended, va,
rev meetings OF the hoard. though Il,
Foted Tor the re-e!ection of The Jircc.
,ors. lie signed The book Iuly %
i'Va, Tor 4 renewal of the Yourl. NOT
re knew little OF the hank affairs an,
20 ,.s'iihohy took up az little time.
Thread of Conttnui.y urnkc,,
Then game Robert Cabnnise
me 'hredd OF continuity injtbo d,ran
q 'oF'ui evidence was brohcn II, didn.