Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1862-02-19

A SINGULAR CAsE.-The readers of the
Press will remember the particulars of the
case of W. J. Mcconnell, who was arrested
a few weeks ago on the charge OF opening a
letter addressed to Col. G. W. Miller, and
appropriating draft which it contained to
his own use. Mcconnell was arraigned be.
fore Judge Satin in the latter part of Janu-
ary, upon the charge of forgery" when the
following testimony was adduced before the
Court. Col. G. w. Miller was the first wit
ness examined. He stated that he was a
Real Estate Agent, doing business at No.
119 Walnut street. That on or about the
9th of November last, he left this city for
Washington, leaving Mcconnell in his Office.
The latter had for several months previous
been occupying Miller's Office as place of
business-paying his proportion of the rent
monthly.
There was no partnership existing be-
tween witness and accused. When witness
left for Washington be instructed accused to
forward to that city any letters that might
come to the Cincinnati Postoffice for him.
While in Washington witness received from
the Park Bank OF New York a copy of
draft, drawn by O. Runkle Il Co., of Knox.
vile, ILL.,, in favor of witness, which had
been paid by said bank. The amount of the
draft was $50. Itwas indorsed "G. w. Mil
ler," which witness pronounced forgery.
When witness returned from Washington,
he wrote letter to Runkle & Co., Knox
vile, ILL.,, making inquiry about the draft.
Accused offered to take the letter to the
postofice. He took IL, and Witness being un-
we'll went home.
The next morning he received a note from
accused, which was offered as testim ony by
the prosecution. The note stated that the
writer (McConnell) had taken letter out of
the postoffice during the absence of witness,
addressed to G. W. Miller, which contained
a draft for $50, drawn by Runkle & Co.,
Knoxville, ILL.,, in favor of said Miller; that
he (McConnell) had used the money to pay
his board with and some incidental expenses,
which he named, and that he would pay the
whole amount as soon as he could.
A. B. McManams was examined. He tes-
| tilted that Mcconnell handed him the drafl
| in question, indorsed "G. W. Miller" re-
| questing him (witness) to get it cashed, az
| be (accused) was not acquainted with the
banks. Witness took the draft to the Walnut
street Bank and got it cashed, and handed
the money back to accused.
The Court thought that q clear case oil
| forgery had been made out against accused
| and he was held to bail in the sum of $500
for his appearance before the Court of Com
mon Pleas.
Singular to say, the Grand Jury failed tt
find an indictment against Mcconnell, anc
he was discharged accordingly A few day
ago, however, he was rearrested at the in
stance of Colonel Miller, on the charge o
breaking open letter addressed to the lat
ter party, which being a United States of
fense, the case was tried before Commis
sioner Halliday. District Attorney Bal
appeared for the United States, and Judge
johnson for the accused.
The examination lasted throughout Mon
day. Mcconnell claimed that as part
ner, he had right to open the letters of G
W. Miller, or G. W. Miller & Co., which
we're known to be on business and that h
was authorized to open the one in question
and use part Of the proceeds Of the draft il
purchasing a stove aud other articles, al
of which Mr.. Miller denied.
The Commissioner reviewed the evidence
and stated that it was admitted by the com
plainant that he was partner of McCon
nell; that Mcconnell on his (Miller's) re
turn from Washington, had informed hin
of what use he had made of the draft. and
appears that Miller was satisfied, and in
trusted him with other business, such a
collecting money for him (Miller.) After
lapse of some two months, Miller had Nc
Connell arrested for forgery, in indorsin
his (Miller's) name on the draft. Upon thi
charge Mcconnell was acquitted.
} The accused was afterward arrested o
the charge of breaking open the letter, an
it was upon this charge that he appeared
Court. The Commissioner decided this
there was no evidence against the accused
and ordered his discharge.
The foregoing should have appeared in OF
issue of yesterday, but was crowded out.