The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-01-21

! actions during 1888 amounted to l $256,000. it was shown. It was Reilly's apparent desire 10 show how a small account, on margin, would run into large figures through repeated purchases and sales.
 Q. At the end of August how did he stand with the house? A. Hauptmann had debit balance of $11, ,739.90.
 Q. Sometimes he was buying as much as $60,OOO to $7O,000 worth of stock, on margin and selling 1t :? A. Yes sir.
 The last photostatic record of his dealings was on September IA, 1884 only few days before his arrest. Q. He cleaned up all his in- debtednesS and had credit bal ance? A. Yes. c. There is nothing unusual for man with a 5000 bank roll to go into Wall Street and buy on margin of he can get credit, is there? A. No, there's nothing unusual.
 Reilly completed his cross ex- animation.
 AtlOEHey IeHeIdl WLcHtZ IOOk over the witness for redirect ex- animation.
 Q. Now nothing was said about losses? A. No sir.
 c. There were losses? A Yes, the losses exceeded the profits.
 Q. The sum total was a loss? A. Yes.
 c. What was that total loss, A. It was $5,72S.73,
 Q. Hauptmann incurred the losses? A. Yes. Wilcntz brought out that on April 2, 1882 the Hauptmann's bank balance stood at $2O3.9O and that they had 50 shares of War ncr stock, valued at $10O. The defense objected to ques- tioning the witness on losses in cured by Hauptmann because much of this was paper losses. Wilcntz reframed his questions.
 "Hauptmann bought many more fore" the witness declared.
 Q. Did he ever have 1000 shares before the Kidnapping? A. No sir. Q. Did he have almost 2,000 shares after the Kidnapping? A. He did.
 Q. Did he ever buy as much as $5O,000 worth of stock prior to April 1882? A. No.
 Q. Did he after that date? A.. He did.
 Q. When did he change his &C., count to "Schoeffler" A. In 1933.
 Q. Prior to April l. 1892 was this an active account. A. It was inactive until April 8, 1892.
 Q. Was it active after this? A. It was.
 Reilly asked for a mistrial on the grounds that "Wilentz delib- crately injected improper material" when he asked the witness whether Col Lindbergh was in the airplane business.
 "I ask for the withdrawal of a juror" Reilly demanded hotly. Teh motion was denied.
 Wilentz brought out the fact that Hauptmann bought hundreds of shares of airplane stock.
 "An Colonel Lindbergh Is inter- ested in aviation?" Wilentz shout ed.
 Reilly was on his feet insisting the remark be sticken from the record and mistrial declared.
 The court refused to sustain the objection
 The witness testified that in July, 1883, Hauptmann paid money. both to margin accounts and into his banks, to a total of $6,5O0.
 ''There was no withdrawal from the brokerage account to make the deposit he said. "and there was no withdrawal of money from the bank to pay the brokerage mar gin
 Q. And did there go into the Hauptmanns' bank accounts any money? A. Yes. on July 28 there was deposited $2.112.50.
 Frank was excused at 2:55 D. m. and Reilly took him over for re- cross examination. Q. You never heard of any money paid by Hauptmann to steiner Rouse coming back as Lindbergh ransom money? A. No. Q. Nor did you ever hear of a dolla rof Hauptmann's money ever coming hack from his brokers or his bank as ransom money did you? A. No. Frank then was excused from the WltneSS StdHu ana a IlVe Inlnule re- cess was ordered.
 Fink's testimony was designed tu show that the telephone number written on panel in Hauptmann's closet had been put there during the negotiations for ransom, or at least before Dr Conden's number was changed to silent" tele- phone.
 The new unlisted number Of ps