The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-06-12
|SAYS ]. v. HENRY
ENDORSED CHECKS
Banks Bookkeeper Identifies
Defendants Signature on
Government Exhibits.
CHECKS NOT ADMITTED
Witnesses Examine Twenty Supposed
to Be Mrs. Isabel
Barklies.

When Justice Siddons ordered a recess
yesterday afternoon until Monday morn
ing in the trial of John William Henry
for embezzling s4l 900 none Of the various
checks alleged to have been sent to the
| stock broker BY Mrs. Isabel Barklie. OF
Wayne. Pa. had been admitted as evil
dence. About a score of government ex-
hibits offered for Identification and sup
posed to be Mrs. Basklie's checks were
| examined by witnesses and counsel. but
the full contents of these exhibits did not
reach the jury.
A heated dispute as to whether the
checks had been offered in evidence on
Thursday arose between Attorney Daniel
Thew Wright, counsel for Henry. and
Assistant United States Attorney James
Archer. who is aiding United States Attor-
ney John E Laskey in the prosecution.
Objects at Wrong Time.
Mr. Archer made valiant attempts to
get the facts before the jury. but was
fought at every step by Mr.. Wright. In
the afternoon session Attorney Wright
made two score of objections. Justice
Siddons overruled SO many of these that
Wright got in the habit Of noting excep-
tions, and on one occasion excepted
when he was favored by the ruling.
The afternoon session was a continuous
rotary of the Real Estate Trust and CO.
lumbia Title Company, witness. was
rebuked by the court for being late.
Marsh's testimony concerned a check
which he said he drew las proceeds of
loan on lot 80. square rs" Attorney
Wright interrupted declaring the wit
ness had not been sworn. No one seemed
to know whether the witness had been
sworn.
Justice Sidons appealed to the stenog-
rapher and learned that the stenographer.
also late in getting into court. could not
say whether the witness had been sworn
or not Marsh was sworn again. The
check did not get in as evidence and its
significance was lost.
William c. Hooker general bookkeeper
for the District National Bank since
September 10. 1909, testified that he had
charge of the account at the bank of
Lewis johnson & Co. the bankrupt
brokerage firm of which John William
Henry Was a member. Hooker said he
had known Henry for twenty-five years.
that he hand seen Henry's handwriting
and signature on letters addressed to
Mrs. Hooker on checks and in indorse-
ments. and declared that checks bear
ing the name of ]. William Henry had
been honored at the bank. Hooker said
he was not competent to testify as
handwrltlng expert.
Signature Identified.
Prosecutor Archer handed one Of the
government exhibits to Hooker and ask
ed: Whose handwriting Is on the back
of that check" The witness answered:
Il think it is the handwriting of J. Will
lam Henry. The check also bears a
stamp of the District National Bank.
showing that the check was deposited
there to the account of Lewis johnson
& Co.
will you look on the account sheet
before you and see If the deposit of the
check is recorded there?'
On April IS l see here a deposit of
5000 was made to the credit of Lewis
johnson & Co. The check bearS the
stamp of the bank, showing that credit |
for 5000 was given" Mr.. Archer then
showed Hooker about a score Of the gov
eminent exhibits. asking the witness if |
he recognized the signatures Hooker |
on each occasion replied: Yes, the sig
nature is that of J. William Henry"
Then Attorney Wright put the witness |
under cross-examination. !
The testimony Of the chief witness |
Tor the governmental Mrs. Isabel Barklie, !
was completed before the court took a |
recess for lunch. Under examination
by Mr.. Wright. Mrs. Barklie was asked. |
When YOU talked with Mr.. Henry, were
you looking for an investment or did /
you want to speculate?'
Wanted to Speculate.
Il wanted to speculate" Mrs. Barkle
admitted. She then declared that her
husband had advised her against specu-
iation. but that she had believed she
could earn money more rapidly than by
investments. Mrs. Barklie could not re-
call conversation with her husband in
which he said he could lose enough money
on horse races for the whole family.
Mrs. Barklie confessed she knew very
little about speculation and when she
was asked TO tell what she understood
by putting margin" on stock, she
asserted her belief that depositing mar
gins meant buying stock on the INSTALL
ment plan. 1t was brought out that Mrs
Barklie's husband had been a close friend
Of the defendant. Henry, and then At
torney Wright wanted to know whether
Mrs. Barklie ever had attempted to have
Mr.. Henry prosecuted. Prosecutor Las
KEY jumped to his feet and objected,
declaring that the experience of Mr.
Wright as a justice of the District Su-
oreme Court should have taught him not
10 ask the witness such a question. A
sharp tilt between counsel followed. The
court did not allow the witness to answer
he query.
Proceedings were suspended until 10
} clock Monday morning.