The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1859-04-26

the page OF the ledger. 1he conyerSatlon between
ME and Thompson, the next morning, never
could have taken place, if the receipt had been
there. There was al understanding that the
article against Peck should be postponed
Thompson and examined Peck's book together
The first voucher was entered on the 1924 page,
left hand az the top, on date of Nav 9Th, in the
hand writinEot c. A. Hedges-s450 for binding
session laws; on the opposite side was credit
for cash 10 balance. There was one voucher
which | could no; find AZ al. Two vouchers
were charged in Hedges handwriting, the res,
were in Peck's handwriting / found au the
items allowed, except one of s6,50-it was tres
ted AS a settled account. The charge $3.50 was
not included in the footings Of the lS2d page
the other items were carried TO page 224-225-
The credits were in detail WAS shown the re-
ceipts some two or three weeks after the first IN
teryiew-My recollection is tina, Mr.. Thompson
brought the receipt 70 me-It had the appear
ance Of having been very lately written. IL was
folded close and snug. ] said when they talked
of having found the receipt in the book, ths,
they must have forgotten that had .een the
book. | went immediately TO compare the ink
on the receipt, with entries OF even date on the
Treasures books. Ii wes not the same Ths,
which was on the book va. the blacklist. The
receipt had not the appearance Of age. | never
saw the receipt again.
Crosseramised By Mr.. Whipple-The first
item on page 50 WAS the charge for the binding
session laws of 1858. l think kpoc tia, it
was not carried 10 page 22i. The balance sheets
were there. | never examined the book except
once. Mr.. Peck made several statements after
his return, which did not coincide with nv recol-
lection. have not been extraordinary in NV
exertions in this case. had no hostile feelings
ton, and vas not influenced by hostile feeling,
and was influenced by no such feeling ady;-
sei the Attorney General 10 commence the suit
before Mr. Peck's Office WAS burned, and ~ soon
as Mr.. Bailey refused to pay the $3.50.
Re-eranine4 bv Mr.. Hovard-I csunot recol-
ect exactly when called your attention to this
case. had a conversation with Mr. Bailey before
the burning of Peck's building. recommended
bringing suit, 80 soon as Bailey refused to pay
the $3.50 in the spring of 1856. Have had no
quarrel with Mr.. Peck on this subject Up TO
the time Of the examination Of the books of Mr.
Peck, supposed he had received the money by
mistake. As soon as saw the books changed
my mind owing 10 the manner in which the en-
tries were carried, from page l 81 to page 224.
Stephen H. Bingham s,corn-I am a book
keeper in the Auditor Generals Office, aud have
been since January, 1885. | saw the receipt in
the Journal office where went at Nr. Thomp-
sons request, about the last of January, 1886.
1t was watered upon page pa OF Mr.. Peck 2
ledger. ] saw no wafer marks on either page
examined the receipt very particularly. My
attention was closely drawn 20 the receipt. It
WAS written in Arnold's writing fluid, not vet
turned black. 1t was blush green. Ii will
,urn black, in II month or six weeks have
used tins ink four and half years The paper
was looking fresh and clean. / never saw ANY
A'nold's fluid that viii not grow jet black in
three months
Cros'-ecan'"ei tg Nr. HhiPPts-Never saw
the receipt except at distance. The cxamina-
made The examination vas made 10y daylight
copied the vouchers-sa~ no pin-holes in the
paper should have seen them if there had
been ANY. All this vas before the return of Nr.
Peck from Washington.
o'clock Thursday Morning, April II, 1859.
L. 4. Baii-g re-caiie|-l vas Dep. Treasurer
during the whole of >53, aud spent nv time in
Office. .uii:or's office in same room. We used
ArnoITs writing nuid- Used 10 other kind cx-
ccpt 10 trv a sample sent from Detroit No other
no other used for business purposes | think
| saw the receipt in my Office, on tho day OF the
1ay before the article against Mr.. Peck appeared
on the 18th Jan. 1886. don't know how or in
what manner the receipt VAS attached to the
book. never saw the ledger before that lay,
nor since. Saw no marks ON the page showing
that paper had been detached | wrote the
receipt on the day upon which il bears date,
Aug H., 1853. ! made ma entry of the settle
ment of NJ. Peck upon any book in the Office.
| kept no memorandum except the voucher
never looked At the books IN see what trsnsac-
tions took place ia the Office 90 that dav-never
sent ANY one to ascertain what took place in the
office on that day. Shown the cs-h-book. Has
no recollection OF any particular transaction
Had no conversation about the rec-ir. until it
vas brough; t. my Office, with any person, ex-
cept Mr. Mortified, who told me about two
vouchers, but did not fully uHdcrs.aui it, till
Thompson brought the book aud receipt new
or had any correspondence about III. matter
/ never wrote or received any Letter about t.
presume ] had The benefit Of the money had
the principal charge O. the Office, AID made It
my business to keep i. good. bad settlements
with NJ. Peck, a often a. The Board allowed his
accounts | made advances To Peel uron work
in hand, almost every Ssturis- night, The re-
ceipt was never spoken Of between u. a, any o,
thee Interviews ! never ss~ tn l.,lgc- Of NJ.
Peek, until Jan. 1856.
R.-erani.ed BIZ III. HhJple-! presume
the receipt was written with Arnold's fIif
never thought Of the receipt from the time il
Wa given, until January 1880. did not know
of the voucher of May ls, 1883 Tie reason
Why say that | bad the benefit Of the 3i50, i.
that the money WAS twice allowed, and only once
pad-the Office :hus received The t4jo, and i
had charge Of tie Office and made I'D defcieu-
cicS and received what .aa g,e~ srJ r,,Lol !.