◆ SpookStack

i Lee ta ee eS ad evading $46,100 in income taxes for 1947 and : A government charge that! Zwillman concealed sources of' income and a defense charge that the prosecution was dealing in “half-truths” also marked the trial today. Over aefense objections, Asst. U.S. Atty. Wilfred W. Hollander read into the record today from Zwillman’s 1946 tax returns a $30.000 entry under “income from other sources—state nature.” Hollander brought out that the nature of the other sources was ‘not stated on the return. Accountant Testifies On the stand at the time was] Israel M. Pogash, an accountant, who testified that he merely pre- pared Zwillman’s returns on fig- ures supplied by the dependant. Under questioning by Hollander, Fogash said that Zwillman did not tell him where the $30,000 came from or did he ask him. Hollander made it clear that the government was not disputing the net worth figures which Zwillman gave the Internal Revenue Serv- iee as of Dec, 31, 1946. He said the purpose of the testimony was to show that Zwillman could do business under somebody else's name anc that the records of those concerns would not show Zwillman’s interest in such busi- ness. However, when Morris Shilen- sky of defense counsel, attempted: to cross-examine Pogash further, Hollander objected to any ques- tions that went beyond the scope of the direct examination. The gourt upheld the objection and Shilensky at once charged that the eourt was letting the witness leave, the stand uy MECRSTETR the” in the) ‘fFecord. committee invéstigation”-f “six! years ago was brought, into the: iat gMesttdey. Over “defense jections, Judge Wortendyke permilted “the goverament to ring in committee testimony. for the purpose of testing the credi- bility of I. George Goldstein, an accountant for Zwillman inter- ests. : 4willman contends that Its wife Mary, and not he, owns a. one-hglf interest in Public Serv, jice Tobacco Co. of Hillside, Goldstein backed up this con-| tention on the stand. He was then| confronted with a statement he Made before the Kefanver com- .|mittee that “basically” Zwillman jwas a “50 per cent partner” ini that enterprise. He admitted he: had given that answer. ‘ | Later, when Shilensky took over questioning, Goldstein explained that the Senate probers had be fore them at the time company records which clearly showed that Mrs. Zwillman, and not her hus- band, was a co-owner. Goldstein ssid that when the committee counsel asked him, “Basically, jthat is Zwillman’s company?” he ‘answered Zwilfman Was a 50 per Crime Prete cited . The KefaQVer Senate crime: ent owner because he Interpreted jt to mean basically Zwillman’s family was the co- owher. The committee counsel could not have meant the legal ownership, he added, because that was set forth in the records be- fore the probers. Hollander demanded: “You were stating that Mr. Zwillman was a 0 per cent owner although his ame did not appear in the com- ny records?” “Positively not,” Goldstein re- plied. ; Diamond T Case Goldstein distinguished this from the case of ‘the three Dia- mond T companies, in which he said loans totaling $20,000 and a 60 per cent stock investment to taling $5,000 all appeared on the books in his name—but “in trust for Mr. Zwillman.” He explained Zwillman had been concerned real party in interest, the Dia- mond concerns might not get a GMC truck franchise, Defense counsel tfepeatedly made the point that the actual or Jack of it—in the two com- ocuments, and in any event was whether Zwillman had falsified! is 1047-1948 income tax returns. : | A trust agreement between Poldstein and Zwillman was of- fered in evidence by the defense. | but the court ruled it could ‘not fe introduced while the govern- qment is presenting its case. Shilensky read into the record nother portion of the Kefauver ommittee transcript which showed Goldstein gave the Sen- te investigators the same account the Zwillman Diamond T inter- bets as bempsssented in court bere. ‘ AS lest if he appeared openly as the © ge status of the Zwillman interest-——=——— penies appeared cicarly in other fp, evant to the question of LON