◆ SpookStack

evading $46,100 in, igcome taxes for 1947 and 9 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 lother 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, Pogash 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- ice as of Dec. 3), 1946. He said the purpose of the testimony was’ to show that Zwillman could do business under somebody else's name and 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 hilensky zt once charged that the eourt was letting the witness leave, the stand “WAP RSTE ths in the) Fecord. f Crime grote cuea The Kefd¥er Senate crime committee investigntion”-of “six! years ag0 was hrought into the: N estfraoy. ‘Over “defense ections, Judge Wortendyke mitted “the goverminent to ring in committee testimony. for the purpose of testing the credi- bility of I. George Goldstein, an accountant for Zwillman inter- ests. . 4 Zwillman contends that fis wife Mary, and not he, owns a one-hglf interest in Public Serv-, ice Tobacco Co. of Hillside. Goldstein backed up this con-| tention on the stand, He was then| confronted with a statement he Made before the Kefauver com | ,|mittee that “basically” Zwillman .|Was a “50 per cent partner” in; that enterprise. He admitted he. had given that answer. | Later, when Shilensky took over questioning, Goldstein explained that the Senate provers 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 seid that when the committee counsel asked him, “Basically, \that is 2willmgn's company?” he ‘answered Fae ‘a 50 per nt owner because he interpreted it to meanswheti@ basically Zwillman’s family was the co- lowher, 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 tating that Mr. Zwillman was a per cent owner although his ame did not appear in the com- ny records?” “Positively not,” Goldstein re-| plied. . 1 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 tallng $5,000 all appeared on the books in his name—but “in trust for Mr. Zwillman.” He explained ¥S Zwillman had been concerned lest if he appeared openly as the ©Y ireal patty in interest, the Dia- mond concerns might not get a Defense counsel repeatedly made the point that the actual jor Jack of it—in the two com- nies appeared clearly in other p, uments, and in any event was evant to the question of LON hether Zwillman had falsified’ is 1047-1848 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 fee introduced while the govern- gent is presenting its case. Shilensky read into the record other portion of the Kefauver mittee transcript = which owed Goldstein gave the Sen- le investigators the same account the Zwillman Diamond T inter- Dempsecented in court IGMC truck franchise, ee status of the Zwillman interest-——-——