OCR Text |
Show MS. L. 1 DYKE 01 WITNESS STB II BUM USE- Judge J. A. Howell yesterday afternoon after-noon denied the motion for non-suit in the case of Louise Van Dyke against the Ogden Savings bank and the defendant company placed on the witness stand Cashier Charles H. Barton Bar-ton and Bookkeeper Sumner P. Nelson, Nel-son, who testified "that the signatures on the receipts for funds withdrawn from the bank belonging to the plaintiff plain-tiff were in her handwriting. Mr. Barton stated that the money was not paid out by him personally and that ho was not always present when Mr. Turner, Mrs. Van Dyke's former husband, drew the money. However, he said, he was familiar with Mrs. Van Dyke's handwriting, and that . he had entertained no thought but that it was her signature on the receipts. Mr, Nelson said that he saw Mrs. Van Dyke sign one of the receipts. This morning the defense rested and the plaintiff began the introduction introduc-tion of testimony to prove that Mrs. Van Dyke did not sign the receipts, the first witness being the plaintiff. Mrs. Van Dyke stated on the witness wit-ness stand that she deposited thu money in question In the Ogden Savings Sav-ings bank in 1908 and that she was living at Ely, Nevada, at the time. She said she married J. J. Turner in November, 1907, and that the savings deposit was made in the name of Louise Turner. She said that she had done business with the bank before be-fore in the name of Louise Van Dyke and had been a customer of the bank a number of years. The witness stated sta-ted that she asked for an accounting of the bank In October, 1913, when '- -; '. ? : she was told by the cashier that her account uas closed and that her husband hus-band had drawn the funds on her orders. or-ders. She was dumbfounded over the Information, she said, and could not think what to do. "What shall 1 do?" she claims she said to the cashier, and he told her to go home and have an accounting with her husband, telling her that she "would have something on him." She told the cashier at the time that she had not signed the orders and that she would look to the bank for her money. She said she could not understand un-derstand why her money should be paid to her husband without due notice no-tice from her. Subsenuently, the witness declared, Cashier Barton and ChieT of Police V. I. Norton came to her home after Turner and placed him under arrest. She said, however, that before Turner was arreBted, the cashier suggested to her that "Jack," her husband, couid not raise, the money to reimburse her, if he were placed In Jail, but he might raise the money If he were given a chance. She says she replied re-plied that she Avould hold the bank for her money and that she did not care to live with a man that sho "had something on." Mrs. Van Dyke stated that when "Jack" came into tho room where Officer Norton, the bank cashier and others were, he told the officer and Mr. Barton that he thought he could make good to his wife the ampunt ho had drawn from the bank, but that he had not done so. "I guess I am up against it and you had better lock me up," the witness told he remarked. remark-ed. He was taken to the city Jail and was afterwards charged wtth forgery, for-gery, but the case was dismissed by the district attorney. Jlrs. Van Dyke went on to say that she droy ?100 of tho deposit in Jan uary, 1U09, and that In July of that year she authorized the bank to lot her husband have about $30 and that she Bigned tho receipts for those nmounts, but that she had not signed the other receipts for money drawn from the bank. She said that When she concluded to let "Jack" draw the money to pay his fare to Idaho, sho called John Pingree of the First Na tlonal bank over the telephone and authorized au-thorized it. She thought that Mr Pingree was connected in some way with the Ogden Savings baijk, as both banks were In the same room and were controlled by the same men. The case was resumed this afternoon after-noon and Mrs. Van Dyke was p.laced under a rigid cross-examination by the , attorneys for the defendant. Her direct di-rect testimony, however, was unshaken unshak-en and she stoutly maintained thdt sue had not ordered the withdrawal of the money except in the two instances in-stances in 1909. , D. A. Swan of Salt Lake, an expert In handwriting, will be placed on the witness stand this afternoon to testify testi-fy regarding the signatures on the receipts, re-ceipts, as compared with Mrs. Van Dyke's handwriting |