The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-01-09
Ia w INTELLIGENCE
CRIMINAL C0URT-JupGE Bonn

Mr.. May read note from DR.. Stokes, stating tha
Mr.. iaskins could not possibly appear in Court t
testify, owing to an attack of alysis.--Mr
Whyte then and said that the counsel for tn
raverser propose to take and submit to the Cour
at one time all of the indictments involving tn
matter OF the finances of MIR. Whitney, of whic
there were three. The first charging him witt
making false report to the House of Delegates
the second with neglecting to keep required b,
law, certain book in which all monies received BY
him fees of his office should be entered
and the third charging him with embezzling tht
funds of the State. The other indictment, which
did not relate to any Of the financial affairs con
nected with the officer of States Attorney, would
not be considered at the present. The counsel fol
the raverser suggests this for the reason that thu
same line of proceedings would be had upon all The
indictments, both for the prosecution and the de
fence. They, therefore, proposed to submit al
OF the three indictments referring to the financial
matters of Mr.. Whitney at the same time from the
evidence produced upon this trai.-Mr May
said, nothing could be more agreeable him per
sonally, than to accede to the proposition of the
counsel. Butn the trial of this cause, all personal
interest would be thrown out, and the ends of JUS
tice alone looked to. He would have pre-
ferred, if the suggestion had been made
before, but at the present time be
would have to object to such a course. Two in.
dctments against the traverser seemed to cover the
same facts, but this, perhaps, would not have oc-
Cured if he had had an opportunity of advising
with the Grand Jury, when that body had the mat
proposition of the defence. If they presented it as
question of right he would argue the matter upon
that question-Mr Pitts said they lid not pre-.
sent it as question of right, but merely to sa We
time and the trouble of going over The same grounds
two or three times.-Mr. May said the State was
ready to traverse the indictment which it had Sc
lected to try frst.-The Court remarked it could
not compel the State to try the indictments
together. 1t laid entirely with the States Attorney
MIR. May then opened the case by referring to
the nature of the indictment and the averments
contained therein. The indictment which charged
Mr.. Whitney with wilful neglect of duty was found
ed upon the 5th article of the Constitution, sec lst
which, after defining the mode of eecting State
officer for the city of Baltimore, his term of office,
&c. declares that he may be subject to there
from for Incompetency, wilful neglect of duty, or
msdemeanor in office, on conviction in Court of
law. This Indictment in substance CHARGES a
false, decetfui and fraudulent report to the House
OF Delegates BY the laws of parliament, which
had become in some measure the common law, that
popular branch of the government had been invest
ed with the powers of grand inquest, having
over all the public officers of the realm
These powers have constitutionally been given to
the House of Delegates of the State, and it has an
entire authority over all the officers of the State
in anything which relates to the public functions
of an officer to calling for accounts and for pa
pers in regard to accounts, and for any statements
referring to his official duties. This proposition
cannot. said Mr. May, be successfully controverted
MIR. May then went on to say that in Feb
ruary, 1850, MIR. Maxwell, of Cecil county, beinp
then a member of the House of Delegates, offered
resolution, requiring the States Attorney of Bal
tlmore city to render statement to that BODY of
the monies received by him. and the expenses of his
office during the years 1856, '57 49, and to have
the statement by the 18th of February. This de.
mand carried with it great obligation upon the
officer who represented the State; tappeaed to his
highest sense of duty, to the utmost principle of
good faith, and it was his duty to respond in good
CHI ha
ing of responsibility, but the information should
have been of the clearest and most
direct character. Mr.. May then said he would
state the grounds upon which the indictment was
found. Upon the 18th day of February, 1860, the
traverser laid before the House of Delegates the
following report Mr.. May then read before he
Court the items as returned in the report of Mr..
Whitney, to the House of Delegates Nav
then called attention to the averments in the indict
ment, which charged him with rendering a false.
decetful and fraudulent report in that he omitted
to lude certain sums of money which he had re-
ceived, amounting to the sum of 81 S765 and also
a note OF the city for ST. 900. The precise aver
ment, is that the account of expenses on the
credit side of the report, is untrue, and that
sums of money, together with note have been en-
irely omitted on the other side. For this the State
charges wilful neglect of duty on the part of the
iraverser.--Mr. May then went on to give the
hgures and amounts which would go to sustain the
charges in the indictment. First-On the 10th of
lanuary 1859, Mr.. Whitney received for fees of the
term 1858, the sum of S2543 49, paid
BY the city. and in his report he admits only ST.
1888 making difference of 81, 1000. Second
The fees Of May Term, 1859, were S3,736 81, of
which Mr.W: received on the i4th Sept. 81 81;
n ms report he admits only 81 $40. a. difference of
5296 %. Third-He received on the 5th of No
'ember, 59, note from the city for 81 300, with
interest," the balance of fees due him for MAY Term
lis note was assigned to Whitney & Cushing,
md paid to them through the Western Bank, with
interest amounting to S57.95. He does not report
his note and comedies the interest-Fourth-
The fees of the September Term, 49, were 274O a.
u which he received on the 10th of January, 80,
81 ,540.34, and note for 81 200 This note was en-
iorsed to Whitney Cushing and paid to them
n the report Mr.. Whitney does not specifically
admit this note, and omits altogether 81 $40 34 and
100 for the year 1853. Fifth-He omits in his
eport the payment Of Sheriff Gaskins of 81 597 l3
mong his receipts for 58, but keeps it for upward
If year, as the final settlement with Gaskins was
IN the 10Th of April, 1853 Sixth-He omits to
harge Mr.. Creamer's payments of at least So 600,
that amount being paid to Mr.. Pinkney on his or.
ers,) as received by him. and omits them altogeth-
r in his report to the House of Delegates although
lie thus concealed from the House of Delegates,
ums paid him by the city and Sherffs Gaskins and
;reamer, an amount exceeding Sc 600. The amount
t the two notes, ofSl 900 and ST. 20O in all SO 100
e had also received, before his report, but does
ot admit it, but leaves the House of Delegates to
nfer that he had not received it, and that it was
ue. The indictment also AYERS, MIR. NJ continued
say, that the report of the expenses in the office
! the traverser, was a false report, exclusive
t the 81 800 paid each year to Mr.. Pinkney the
eport stated the expenses of the office for the year
oe, to be S773 55, for the year 57, 81 3S042 and
OF the year '5S, the sum of 50 $1,000, showing the
econd years increase to be SCOT or nearly double
he expenses of the first and the increase of the
hird year to be 81, S46,6 ,65, almost quadrupe. Mr.
lay then referred to the evidence which the State
TouId produce to sustain the averments of the in. |
ictment. The State would contend that upon each |
nd every item there was dereliction of duty on
ne part OF the traverser, and if the Court found
hat the State maintained the allegations the |
'ourts duty was to remove the officer. If it was |
hown on the other side that the items of the re-
ort were mistakes, the State would contend that |
was wilful neglect of duty on the part of the
MIR. May concluded, the
t the present stage of the trial
he State then called Thomas II. Moore, who was
worn. Was formerly Clerk of the Criminal Court; |
ne costs Tor Mr.. hitney were taxed on the docket
nd list handed to the Sheriff for collection; had |
o book showing the amount received by Sheriff; |
ont know what Sheriff collected or what he paid
by Mr.. PItts-Had no means of knowing what |
herif collected or what he paid.-Mr Whyte- |
was usual for Sheriff and Clerk to confer to-
ether when discrepancies occurred; never knew |
hen the Sheriff paid the officers cf the Court:
herlf charged for collection 6,7 and per cent |
ohm A. Thompson, City Register, sworn.-The |
egister stated to Mr.. May that be had no memo
andum of monies which had been paid to Mr..
Whitney with him, but could procure the state.
lent from his office made for the Grand jury
-tter an absence of few minutes Mr. Thompson
eturned with the statement and the book of ac-
cunts OF his office. At the request of Mr. May he
len went on to state the amounts paid Mr.. Whit
ey from the time of the commencement of his
ihcial career in 1856, up to the 18th of February
$50, as follows:
1856 Paid Mr. Wbitnev
5th hon m for Ion,oxr ra--,
2th September. 2'7S6.66 for May
Ist I;s Sa1y SSapuary a5s for seDtember
'lh Feoruary ary.............. 1000 " ePe
Total for 1856. 1899
h May......... ... -. s205o 90 for January Term.
ID September r........... 2,S24,9O for May
"a q Si@asFy ss SO September
Total for 1857. s9l0s.23
Mr. Thompson explained that the item of 2Oth
anuary, 1858, for $4,000, was an order of the
riminal Court, on the Comptroller, favor of Mr..
hitney, which had been transferred to r. France
nd paid to him.
1858.
'th May.... 81 ,4O3 33 for January Term
Eth September. 6,l9S.00 for May
)th January y............. 2543 SO for September
Total for 1885,. s1o,l44 Go
lth May. $50 &c for January Term.
1860.
9TH January. 154o34)
L" ........ .... 100 90 for September g
The item OF 81 900, 5th Nov was a note of the ctv,
IT months, bearing interest, which amounted on
laturity to S57.95. The item of s., 200 on t
Jth OF January, was note of the city at 4
onths, without interest. The total for the wear
$50, received from the city, in notes and money.