New-York tribune., 1914-11-13
Technical Defence Based
on Contention Credit at
Bank Was UnbrOken.
HOLD NEW" LOAN
WAS A RENEWAL
Move Indicates Aim to
Prove He Was Not Real
ly InsOlvent Then.

From stan Correspondent OF The Trieup">
Geneseo. n. ", Nov. 12.-out of the
mass Of detailed figures the defence
succeeded in hesping upon those al
ready confusing the minds Of the jury
to-day in their dissemination OF
the People's witnesses one clear fact
emerged, revealing Henry Siegel's de-
fence.
Il is that he will seek to win his
scouittal by the technical defence that
II cannot be shown beyond reason
able doubt that certain bookkeeping
operation in the bank he is accused OF
robbing was completed before certain
other bookkeeping operation was begun.
The two bookkeeping operations had
10 do with the taking up an old note
for $4,000, which matured on Apnl ",
1918. and the discounting OF a new note
for the same amount on the same day.
The defence is trying TO prove that the
second note was simply renewal OF
the former The prosecution Is trying
TO prove that there was an absolute
break between the two transactions.
The contention OF the prosecution IS
that BY means Of false financial state
mentS Siegel led the National BANK OF
Commerce. OF New York City. 20 open
a line of credit for him. secured by his
notes. and that against this credit he
drew among others the sum OF 1854 %,
the specific larceny he is charged with.
II is contended ne was really insolvent
at the time and knew II. so that his
note was worthless as security for the
bank.
Holds Note Was Renewal.
The technical point toward which the
defen. is leading is that the second
note Of April %, 1913, continued the
credit established by the old note, so
that the 1854 % was drawn against an
unbroken line Of credit and therefore,
whether Siegel was insolvent or not, the
1854 O5 could not have been any part OF
a larceny, since larceny cannot be COM
mitted against credit. =.
The following written statement OF
the matter was shown 70 John 8.
Stanchfeld, counsel for Siegel:
"The defence is purely technical,
resting on the fact that on no one min
ute on April % did Siegel and Vogel
not have a loan Of $4,000 in the bank;
in other words, that no new money
passed to Siegel and Vogel on that date
and that consequently the item Of
1854 O5 could not have been any part
of larceny, so that the Indictment as
drawn is faulty
"That is pretty correctly stated Mr.
Stanchfeld said.
When Arthur c. Train, who is prose
cutting Siegel, was shown this state
ment. he said: IF that is their defence,
they are forced absolutely into this
Dosition. that they would have com
initted larceny if they had discounted
this note (of April 29) in any. other
bank in New York City except the Ma
tional Bank OF Commerce. But that
because they discounted the note IN
their own bank, then they did not com
The cards of the defence were
thrown on the table during the cross
examination of Archibald ". McDon-
aid. discount clerk of the National
Rank of Commerce. He filled in the
story of the dealings Siegel had with
the bank since 1904, told Yesterday and
TO-DAY by Herbert P. Howell, vice
president of the bank.
Fix Time of Loans.
He gave the list of numerous $780,
600 loans discounted in serially matur-