Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-04-11
10 lFrom the Coshocton Democrat.l
THE TREASURY ROBBERY.
Full DeveIopments-The Guilty Par.
tics indicted and Under Bail.

Full DeVeIOpm entS-The Guilty Par
- tics indicted and Under Bail.
s Our readers all recollect the particulars
of the supposed robbery of our County
Treasury, published at the time, which is
not necessary here to repeat. Every effort
was made at the time to ferret out the rob-
berry, but without success. The great Sc
cret was locked up with the Treasurer, and
he putting the officers on the wrong track,
every effort failed. But the County Com
missioners notified all the banks which the
money was on, to inform them of any sus-
picious sums being presented for redemp-
tion, or by suspicious persons.
/ In April or May, after the robbery, notice
came from the Bank of CadiZ that pack
age of STAINED and MUSTY bank-notes had
been presented at their bank for redemp-
tion by James NJ. Brown, of Coshocton.
Brown was called upoA for an explanation.
and his statement was written down and
preserved, but as it could not be discovered
that he was using more money than he had
apparently been using before the robbery,
the suspicious against him died out aud
were forgotten. rt
Years passed away and no clue to the
robbery could be obtained. s
In December, 1864, Brown was charged
with a burglary, by entering the drug store
/ of VIM. Ward in this town, and jeff for
parts unknown. The case came before the
Prosecuting Attorney, and Brown was in
the prosecutor the old suspicious against
Brown for completely in the Treasury rob-
bery. and he turned his attention to collect
ing facts in that case. Obtaining possession
of Browns statement in regard to the
stained money, he became satisfied that his
statements were false-that the money was
never stained in the manner Brown claim
ed, nor buried at the time nor in the place
he said it had been-and that the account
Brown gave of bis whereabouts on the
night of the robbery was untrue. The
prosecutor then visited the banks and bro
kers of Cadiz, Wheeling, Bridgeport and
Columbus-at all of which places Brown
had passed this stained money and given
different accounts for its stained and musty
condition. This confirmed him in the opin-
ion that Brown vas guilty, as robber or
receiver of the stolen money.
! He then obtained, after long search, the
notes of Browns testimony in trial be-
tween himself and his brothers widow and
| heir, in which it became important for
Brown. in order to keep his brothers child
from sharing fair portion of his property,
to show that he was worth less than he
really was, and that he owed more than he
really did.
In this sworn statement Brown says he
borrowed $4,000 of man in Kentucky, in
the spring of 1859, shortly after the rob-
berry, and about the time of the discovery
of the stained money, and that he gave no
security for that loan.
| He also swore that at the date of his
brothers death he was worth only $4,000
in money, credits, mortgages and chattel
| property. Yet he now produces Obliga-
tions against Ketchum for over $4,000.
This statement the Prosecutor did not be-
| lieve. He went to Kentucky, and became
| fully satisfied that Brown had lied, and
became fully confirmed in his belief that
the $1,000 of stained money, and the $4,000
said to have been borrowed i'll Kentucky,
came out of the Treasury.
But, how the money came into Brown s
hands was still mystery.
| About this time, the prosecutor obtained
the important testimony, that citizen of
| CoshOcton, of most uuimpeachablec character
for worth, truthfulness and integrity, had
seen Brown come away from the treasury
building about ten o'clock, on the night of
the robbery!
With these facts he procured an indict-
ment against Brown for the robbery, and
one for receiving the money. The prose-
cutOr had numerous small links of evidence,
trifling OF themselves, but important links
in the chain of evidence, and was ready for
trial in August last, but Brown had the
case continued. The State was ready in
December, but Brown obtained a change OF
/ venue to Licking county. But Judge
Downing committed an error in the pro-
ceedings, which gave the Licking court no
jurisdiction of the case, unless Brown
should voluntarily appear and plead. This
he REFUSED to do, and the prosecutor was
compiled to dismiss the cases and COM
mence anew.
Finding it was going to be difficult to
procure all the witnesses from Kentucky
aud Virginia to appear here in person, and
knowing their dispositions could be had in
a civil case, he laid the matter before the
Attorney General, who commenced civil
suit, and attached all Browns real estate
oil nl,in ofa
ings, and brought Brown to his Senses
Brown found it then necessary to expose
the County Treasurer, and. if possible
compel him to run away. Fer this pur-
pose he commenced in the Franklin Com
mon Pleas suit against Ketchum, the late
Treasurer, for balance of $4,000 and in
terest on a note against Ketchum, original
ly for $4,000. On this note was a credit
of $4,000 in December, 1858, and for $7,5OC
on January 3, 1859; i'll all $4,000.
The Prosecuting Attorney was in Co.
lumbus day or two after this suit wa:
commenced, saw the notes and credits, and
was satisfied that the $4,000 so credited
came out of the Treasury-that Brown haC
a guilty knowledge of that fact, and thai
the Treasurer was a defaulter. Hurryine
home he filed his affidavit against Ketchum
for embeZzlement and Brown for complici
ty, had them arrested, and they were in.
dicted by the Grand Jury on these charges
and the case will, we hope, undergo &
thorough judicial investigation. Both are
under bonds for $4,000 each.
THE TREAsURER's STATEMENT.
Samuel Ketchum, the defaulting Treas
urer, mas made full statement of his de
falcation and pretended robbery. In June
1857, he was deficient in funds for abou
$2,OOO, for which he could not then, ant
cannot now, account. He went to Brown
VINO was a banker, for loan. Brown