The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1923-04-26
HERE'S MORE ABOUT
WAREHOUSE
STARTS ON PAGE l

didn't tend 20 prove or dlspfoye any.
thing material
Hart then produced the copy Of
a letter. purporting 70 have been
written by Watorhouso and dated
two weoka nrlor TO the time that
the bond already In evidence was
executed. In which the writer refer.
rcd 10 Watorhouse as "co-aurety
with Albert Kelly"
Waterhouso. however declined 10
Identify the copy,
II never saw that letter in my
llfe,' he testified. "aatli you handed
Il 60 me-"
Injection OF the new bond into
tho case produced decided sensa.
ton. "a Waterhouse has always con.
tended that the first bond was
signed by Frank Watcrhouse a Co.
and that he became pcraonal In.
demnltor only after the company's
bond had been refused. The plain.
tiff. on the other hand. holds that
Warehouse aligned the bond hs
purely personal matter and In con.
sideratlon OF $1,000 90 be paid per,
sonally 20 him. and that he shifted
the account 10 his company only
after Il had resulted Ia a subatan.
tia, loss- and Il IL on this basis
TINT iaube is seeking TO recover
the tiSs.oo0 lost by the company
In the Transaction.
Warehouse scored telling We.
tory during the morning session.
when Judge Hall. after hearing
lengthy argument on tho subject. re.
fused 20 submit IN evidence doc.
ument purpoing 10 be a copy OF
claim which WnteFhouse " alleged
20 have caused TO be flied against
tho government. on lis Personal be.
half in connection with the III
Aquario deal Judge Hall ruled
that tho paper WIS inadmisaiblc be.
cause IL had not been certified by
the auditor OF the war department.
but announced that he would admit
Il II this were corrected for the
purpose Of showing that such
claim was filed ~ watefhouse'A at.
torreys.
Arguments on this point. with the
jury excluded from the courtroom.
consumed the first hour OF tho
morning and then tho crcss.cxamln.
alton OF Watcrhouse. which began
Tuesday. was resumed.
Yesterday" Hart started. IT
called 10 your attention certain &C.
counts In which Il was shown that
10000 OF tho III Aquaric loss had
been assumed by you personally. In
your income tax statement for the
year 1890 did you mako claim for
this SEQ. 900 aH loss"
NO" waierhouse declared en-.
phatically. Il did not
Did you ever make such n
eiaim7" Hart pursued.
mo. air. did not"
Hart then asked waterhouse II
he had brought into court copies Of
tclegmmA exchanged by him with
Judge W. II, Boslo at the time when
tho latter was in Washington in con.
neeiion with III Aauario claims--a
subpoena for which was served upon
the Witness the day before.
Clarence l.. Rcamca. chief counsel
for Watcrhouse. sore triumphant
grin ns he produced tho first mes.
sage requested.
we demand AZ this time" he an.
nounced. -that this telegram DO In.
troduccd In the evidence. They can't
segrogate the evidence this way and
introduce just what they want and
not the rest"
judge Hall ruled that he had no
authority for suoh a procedure. but
Reames renewed his request as each
telegram wns produced. His expires.
sion seemed TO indicate that tho sub.
poenned kilograms were good defense
evidence rather than otherwise.
Called upon 20 produce all his cor.
rrspondence with attorneys during
tho period when tho FL Aquario
claims were pending. wsterhouse Dc.
eiarcd that he didn't have them. and.
upon an objection by Reamcs. Judge
Hall ruled that the plaintiff had had
no authority TO call for the letters.