Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-05-29
Faces Severe Cross-Exami-
nation With Reiteration of
Seeking to Aid Woman.
HOLDS MANIPULATI0NS
WERE TO PROTECT BANK
Defense Counsel Notes Exception
When Rover Is Upheld, in De-
handing Yes and No Replies.

the Farmers q Mechanics National
Bank, today continued to maintain as
his defense Of the accusations against
him that bookkeeping errors, for which
he was not responsible, formed the basis
Of charges Of falsifying the records of
the bank and Of classifying a report to
the controllers, and that his manipula-
lions of the banks funds in the stock
market were to protect the bank and
salvage the finances of Mrs. Louise T.
Chambers.
AS Haynes continued to detail the
transactions by which Mrs. Chambers
indebtedness to the bank increased and
always defended his operations as
proper under the circumstances"
Rover asked him:
Mr.. Haynes. Is there anything you
could have done for Mrs. Chambers
that would not have been wrong?"
questioning If he would have increased
his overdrafts TO as much as $l50,000
to bolster her finances.
Limit to Everything"
There is a limit to everything"
Haynes said, adding, however, that Mrs.
Chambers affairs were in very bad
shape.
On one occasion. when there was a
cash item" for $6,369.39 in the bank
as q result as what was described as
some of Mrs. Chambers stock trans
actions. Rover questioned why she had
not paid it without letting it run. and
Haynes said she was unwilling to do so
at that time. On another occasion.
where Haynes is accused Of misapply-
ing $4,000, he said this money went
to cover short sale" of stocks by
Mrs. Chambers and that this was not
Immediately taken up, although her
finances would have permitted him to
discharge the obligations. Rover asked
why Haynes did not force payment,
and the answer was that it just meant
that Mrs. Chambers would have applied
for another loan.
Did she have some kind Of a spell
over you that you had to loan her
money every time she came after it,"
Rover questioned.
mo, could have sold her collateral
and put her out Of the bank" Haynes
answered.
And let the directors know about
it?" Rover said.
II think the world would have
known about it," Haynes said.
Denies Attempt to Hide Balance.
Rover tried to force an admission
by Haynes that where a misappropri-
alton of $4,000 is charged as the re-
suit Of a payment to the Dyer Hudson
Co., New York brokers. in one CT Mrs.
Chambers reputed transactions, the
bookkeeping entry had been falsified to
balance the account to hide 1t from the
directors. Haynes denied this.
Taking up three items where false
entry is charged. Haynes insisted the
bookkeeping of his subordinates was at
fault. One Of these. the $6,369.39 item.
constitutes the basis for a misappro-
priation charge. 1t was shown on the
banks record as cash." when it should
have appeared as leash item" and
when Haynes said that he could not
understand this he was reminded that
Joseph Riley. former bank employe, tes-
tifying earlier in the trial. had said
that he was instructed to show this as
cash by C. Howell Young, who was also
Haynes son-in-law. Haynes still in
sisted that he had nothing to do with
1t, and said it was erroneous. no matter
by whom ordered. Young denied knowl-
edge of the order
The acrimony which marked the start
of ross-examination was continued to-
day. Rover objecting time after time
as the witness refused to give Eyes"
or mo" answer. to questions, but went
into details. Haynes continued to in
sist that they could not be answered
directly. His counsel, H. Winship
Wheatley, appealed to Justice Gordon,
who is conducting the trial at District
Supreme Court, for the right to go into
details. saying that this had been ex-
tended to the prosecution.
Exception Is Noted.
T,,e&;oa Gordor rep1ied 1,ouyayer %hof
he thought the witness could confine
himself more to the questions, adding
every explanation he gives is that he
did it for Mrs. Chambers"
Eventually Wheatley noted an excep-
ton when Haynes was checked.
During the course of the morning as
Haynes was accused Of hiding his OPP
erations from the directors Of the bank
and of seeking to conceal the condition
of the bank from the controller, he
insisted had he explained" to the di-
rectors and bank examiners, that the
explanation would have been accepted.
He admitted, however, that the d.
rectors were not informed about the
transactions with Mrs. Chambers. but
explained this by saying that as ex-
ecutive oficer of the bank he had
right to carry on these operations with
out advice. =.
Rover asked Haynes how he expected
to pay of more than $4,000 in notes
on his salary of $1,000 a year, and
Haynes said he had not expected to pay
$4,000 of the money, as that was Mrs.
Chambers obligation. So far as the
$4,000 was concerned he insisted that
his family was living nicely" within
that sum.
Errors by subordinates, for which he
was unable to account, were blamed
Yesterday by Haynes for inaccurate
bank records on which charges of false
entry are alleged against him.
In the first count OF the indictment
charging that SAL 800 of his notes
falsely showing as having been paid,
when in fact they were unpaid, Haynes
said he could not advance a reason
why this entry had its inception in a
teller's records unless speculate on
It, and won't do that"
Cupidity Hinted.
Nor was he able to say why notes
for $4,000 and $500 had not been
properly recorded.
Rover suggested that perhaps Haynes
was trying to conceal his financial con-
dition from the directors Of the bank.
1T was not afraid Of the board OF
directors not approving my loans"
HAYNES said adding that they did give
their approval to these loans when they
were included with others aggregating
S50.300.
Rover brought out that when this lat
ter transaction took place, the first
Croa1u of notes was overdue,