Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1922-03-24
discovered they were missing and or
dered Mr. Schechter to return them.
determination.

state, cross examined Mr.. Croxton.
He pressed Mr. Croxton to tell Of the
cotton speculations of Mr.. Jones, but
the witness said he did not know of
them. He was asked IL he, as cashier
of the bank, was not bound to know
that Mr.. Jones was speculating be-
cause:
TT takes lots Of money to speculate
with, more than for almost any other
business, doesn't it?" the attorney
asked.
Depends upon which side you hit!"
replied the witness and there was con-
siderable laughter in the courtroom.
He admitted that when G. G. Scott
and R. H. Rice went to the bank to
see about the two checks in question,
while making an audit of the books Of
the Lancaster Mercantile company,
that the defendant declined to show
them anything and said to them I'll
supply you with information at the
proper place, the courthouse"
John A. Cook Heard.
John A. Cook, cashier Of the Lam
caster Oil company, and a director of
the First National bank Of Lancaster,
was the next witness called. He testi-
fed that Mr.. Schechter did make the
statement to the comptroller that he is
alleged to have made. He said he was
at the conference and heard Mr.. Schech-
ter make the statement.
On oss-examination he was asked
II he knew anything about the case at
bar and when he said he did not he was
excused.
Counsel for the defense retired for a
short conference and upon its return to
the courtroom announced that the de-
fendant would rest his case at this
time. as
Col. Springs. on Stand.
Col Leroy Springs was then placed
on the stand by the state, in rebuttal.
He was asked number of questions
as to his age, how long he had been in
Lancaster. etc.
He was then called upon to tell of
the organization. in 1899, Of the Lam
caster Mercantile company and Of the
taking in Of the defendant at later
time. He told Of how the defendant
came in as director and how later he
was placed in charge Of the whole busi-
ness. -,4
Mr.. Robinson precipitated the storm
when he asked Colonel Springs:
when did you first learn Of the
transaction of the 200 bales of cotton,
known as the Munds, Rogers & Stack:
pole contract?p' - ~
Counsel Thomas F. McDow took act
i've interest in events at this time and
objected. There is no question but that
Mr.. McDow carried on most success
full warfare Of OBJECTIONS" before the
court, for he managed to keep out of
the records almost all Of the very dam
aging evidence of Colonel Springs, only
later, however, by his own cross-exam-
ination to stumble into several awk-
ward situations which left dangerous
inuendoes at times.
Found by g. g. Scott.
The foregoing question, however, was
allowed under a modified form and Mr..
Springs said that Mr.. Jones never did
mention the transaction to him at all
and that he knew nothing about 1t un-
til auditors began examining the books.
He said that G. G. Scott found the en-
try, while auditing the books Of the
Lancaster Mercantile company. He
was finally allowed to fix the date as
April, 1921, "a .ar..g
He was not allowed to tell what he
did after he found out about the alleg-
ed shortage. .
At this juncture Attorney Robinson
made reference to the eloquence Of At
torney Mellow, who was so flattered
that he turned to Counsel Robinson
and replied in fiowery language, extoll-
ing the virtues of Mr.. Robinson. The
courtroom was laughing at the passage
at arms and the court discovered that
they were not on the case and called
for order, making remark about both
Of them. The diversion relieved a
somewhat tense situation.
The alleged erasure Of the word cot
ton" and the alleged change to "mer-
camille" in which the defendant had
stated his belief that the loss on 1000
bales Of cotton should have been charg-
ed to the Lancaster cotton mills instead
of the Lancaster Mercantile company,
brought up another storm when Colonel
Springs was called upon by Mr.. Robin
son to explain the 1,OO0-bale transac-
ton.
Records Barred. -...
Records from Colonel Springs office
and records from the office of the New
York cotton firm which handled the
deai, were not allowed in evidence and
Colonel Springs was only allowed to
state thu he ordered the cotton bought.
The confirmation ticket was offered
in evidence and Mr.. McDow objected
and the paper was handed to the court
to see whether or not 1t ought to go in
to the records:
II don't understand what it's all
about now that I've got It," said the
court. Il don't see anything but pa
per with lot of figures on it,