The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-13

on JUnc IA, 1913, the prosecution al
legts Tie balance Of the Fourteenth Street
stores credit WITH the National Bank OF
Commerce was sufficiently impaired 30
make the drawing and casAlng OF the
E'aiOJ check constitute grand larceny.
ASSISTANT District Attorney Train said
The defence mas been forced into this po-
siLon; had the $4,000 note been is
com. i AZ any other bank except the Ma
tJHal hauk OF tommelc.. "A larceny would
have been committed but because the note
Was discounted by the bank with which
TIE Fourteenth street Store and Segel IL
\ogcl had always done business no lar
cen! was committed
Inc main points ON which counsel for
the defence rely to free Siegel of the
grand larceny charge were emphasized
al. through the cross-eXamnation OF Her-
DIT T. Howell, vlce-prtsident Of the Ma
Iuhdi Bank OF Commerce. which was con-
tHued as soon as court was convened
ana lasted most of the day. Howell. the
.st witness Tor the state. told yesterday
how the bank had been msed into a
loan Of 100000 by representations of the
prosperity OF the business enterprises OF
a.egrl and Nogel when they were really
on the verge Of bankruptcy.
Ross NJ Lowell, associate counsel with
John Il. Stanchteld, who conducted the
questioning for Siegel tried 10 prove, iirst
i.dt the National Bank OF Commerce had
made S3G,7S5 in interest from the Four
teentp street store in ten years on money
loaned to 1t; hat ii had also made S22,-
sos in interest on the stores average
daily bank balance of S3S,lSO during the
same ten years that it mad received back
s.409 81. or . per cent, Of the amount
In, store owed on the four notes dis
counted by the bank when the store went
INTO the hands OF receivers on December
70 1919. and that the bank also expects
10 ge- more money from the store through
Tie reorganization Of the Segel enter
I'Isrs.
secondly the defence tried to prove
' through lioweils testimony that the $780,
hHo loan, of which the SGSi.OJ is a part
was merely a continuation Of the yearly
I''e Of credit Of 10000 established bS
Siege. and Nogel with the bank ten years
aIo. that therefore the loan on January
Z, 1913, was not a new transaction fol
the rsdIscountiug of the four notes, anc
t.tt The 100000 loaned in January was
loaned a month before the false state
W"nis alleged in the indictment were sub
m.'ird to the bank and passed by III
officers.
Ir Train, however, in commenting OF
tHo testimony of his witness declared thai
the evidence adduced by the defence wen
.oug way to prove the larceny OF $50,
600 He also succeeded in blocking
move by the defence to shirt response
h.N tu NogcL who is dead, by estab
fishing that Sicgel as well as Nogel signed
an alleged false statement in 1910. Th'
prosecutor also got a favordbl" ruins
ON Judge clark ON his conspiracy ale
gItion when the court decided that !
t"D or more men enter into conspirac,
10 commit crime the actions of one arr
as guilty as those OF another.
Documentary Proof Introduced.
In his efforts to prove that the $1,000
lo1n Of January Z was merely continued
ANT that no new transaction was mad
Whon the four notes We're rediscounte'
september .. r. 10 and 26, and again
o.. December 49, %, 26 and 80, Mr.. Lovel
ei TO get Howell to admit that NJ
money ever left the bank and that tn
whole matter was only a bookkeeplnI
transaction. \ mass of dOcumentar
proof was identified and introduced I
SuhsnuUlt, the dofeuCe's claim
"Ddu't Mr. VogeL the partner OF MI
Fopcl. como TO the bank and tell Mr., Alex
RnIcr the banks president, and you tina
the money market was tight and ask 10
o -,nowal Of the notes. Mr.. Lowell aske
NJ Howell
"Npt exactly"
"Ddn't Nj Nogel come to the ban
~ December, l9l2, to see you ava NJ
Alexander and ask YOU to renew the ma
turtles coming due"'
81 would say yes" answered Mr.. How
81
When asked II that interview did ne
Continued on Fourth Page.