Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-02-06

attic in his appeals to them. ana this
morning Mr.. Jefrries was compelled
to remind him not TO argnc the case
with the jury. rs that was part OF
his attorneys business.
Mr.. Brent started onr with inc
first Indictment and lead the witness
Through every transaction which had
already been explained 10 the jury
by the witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr.. Hooff made practically no defense
Ito anv Of the matters about which
he was questioned. reitegating over
aud over again that everything had
been done in accordance with the es-
tahlishcd custom Of the office. that
! the cancelled and redeemed stock
was the property Of the company, and
could be used as collateral, and that
the loans had all becn accomoda-
ton loans. He argued time and
time again that there was no proof OF
any wrongdoing on his part and dar-
cd Mr. Brent TO produce any cv:-
dcnco TO the contrary. At times he
refused 10 make answers from mem
DRY, but said that il the officers OF
the First National bank and The Vir-
ginia Trust Corporation were called.
he could secure data from them that
would give Il correc, answer TO Mr..
Brcnt's questions.
In reference to he paid up stock
which the prosecution charges was
not entered on the boks until mon!! he
after il had been sold. and also to
several shares which wc"n issued
hut do MOI seem to appear on The
books ut all. Mr. HooiT was very haZy
and could not throw much light on
the matter. His principal defense on
this charge WAS that he employed
competent assistants in the Office, and
that he could not be held response
bic If they failed to put the proper
items on the boks. When shown
the bylaws OF the Association by
Mr.. Brent. which required the sccrc-
tary to keep an accurate account OF
all the transactions Of the company,
Mr.. Hooff appealed to the jury and
said that no one Of them rs Il hlsi-
ness man would employ hookkceD"r
and then proceed to check every item
upon tho books.
As a result OF Mr.. loofis crOss-cE-
animation there was nothing new
brought out in the case. except the
circumstances surrounding the issn-
ancc OF stock certificate No. l0l TO-
Mrs. Angelo, on which money was
later borrowed. Mr.. HooT acknow-
lodged that no money had been re-
ceivcd by the association for this
stock but said that this was the only
timo that this had ever been done.
There were many conflicting opin-
ions among those who heard Mr..
IIooif's testimony rs TO the proba-
bic effect it would have on the jury.
the majority. however, thinking that
be had injured rather than helped
his cause.
Afternoon Session.
Mr.. Hooff was still on tho stand
when the afternoon session was COM
menced and Mr.. Brent continued the
crosS-eXamination Of the witness. The
commonwealth attorney was mcrci-
less in his minute probing Of Mr..
Uooff's connection with the company.
especially as 70 loans Of $4,000 and
$500, which the latter had secured
from the association. giving stock in
the company rs security. Neither OF
these loans were reported 10 the dlrec-
tors. nor could Mr.. Hooff give any
details regarding them. In 1906 he
withdrew 5000 from the AsSocia-
tion for paid up stock. On January
LIST. 1911. ne held $1,000 in paid UP
stock, on which he received the in
terest.
Mr.. Hooff concluded his testimony
with the statement that he could give
no further account OF the disposition
OF S5,4S0.90 which his statement of
December LIST, 1910, showed TO be
cash on hand Mt that time.
Frank Martin testified that for 1t
years he had been engaged i'll selling
stock OF the Mercantile and that il
was the custom OF the company TO-
reissue cancelled stock
At three o'clock Judge Barley gave
the jury the Instructions
----O---------
LOSES THREE FINGERS.