Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-09-06

Jail, they not being able to find bail for their appear
For further reply TO the testimony in thi, case
Nellie Millward, hereto appended
~. S. VS.. Lizzie snow
Fee OF District Attorney 10 60
witnesses $50
Warrant leo
s8l4 90
the marshal for the quarter ending March sist.
In addition, collected and paid for three
days attendance of one of the witnesses; and So for
the hire of hack procured at the Request Of the de-
PENDANT, and for her accommodation. The bill OF
concurrence Of the defendants attorney, who care
fully examined the same and paid it.
50. s. VS.. Annie Wilson Fined $500, and cost.
said to the Judge that She had but Sioo; that she
had net expected to be fined more than that amount,
make up the She heTeupon " paid eH
The Court allowed her time, and subsequently re.
the costs $500 TO be paid; In her testimony she
states that friend came TO her and told her he could
paid me, and with the sum Of one hundred dollars
above stated as paid on the day Of her conviction
except GO % paid to witnesses, hose receipts have
on ile II is true as she states that no witnesses
in attendance for two and another for three
Of @ an
been to her friend or attorney it was certainly no.
on behalf that the in WaS pad
10 MIN.
gu. 5. vs.. Mary Broom-In this case there does
not seem to be any question made, In the testimony
costs, payment of the same; but she states mum.
Der of circumstances regarding the manner of her
and her and about the time of her arrest intended
TO reflect discredit upon officer of the court
These statements declare to be, In each and every
particular, unaualifedly false.
ms u., MA E1. hckLE p..
SloO and costs IS which she paid, and which will
be found accounted for in my return to the Marshal
saa hs hr for her
detained for her use for four or five hours All Of
have to be confined in Jail.
so ana + xs MINIS kSyd a !Sr RoTths Fined
amount is included in my return. In addition. She
hesses two days each, SIS, which amount was was duly
paid by me to said witnesses In her testimony be-
whereas the whele amount of costs collected by me
SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING CASES.
The foregoing appear to be the only cases Of this
class TO which the testimony ELECTED by the com,
my integrity cficer Of the court and careful
examination of the subject it seems me, will make
sought 20 be drawn to disparsgement are in no de
gree whatever warranted by what in this connection
they have spread the public The prosecutions
against these people were under the direction of the
District Attorney; were re, commenced upon informa
conducted with any unnecessary severity. and SO
is all that did or endeaVored TO DO. war
with the single purpose to discharge my duty with eff
BY the committee speak Of time having been allowed
them by me Tor the satisfaction Of the judgments Of
gotiated with them to that end. OF course had
nothing to do but execute the orders of the court
as strictly and at the same time as kindly as posi-
Bile. In every case where time was allowed, il was
by the express order OF the court, without sugges
would say ed
me much trouble and no little perpexity had been
any delay or Indulgence. In the taxatiop 81 ests
the items for summoning witnesses were based in
whether such witnesses were actually examined or
not the cost Of summoning them was Of course pro-
legal fees for their attendance upon their demand
for the same, and in these the aggregate amount so
In each such case, but the business in
the midst q the hurry Of the Preceding Of the
clerk 70 take the receipts Of the parties In case
fees in Which the amount taxed T sSs's nd fr S1neSs
paid to wi,nesses baye now in use printed blank
tendance is required to sign receipt.
THE FEEs FOR sUNNoSINs WITNESSES.
which have been reply ing to the statements Of the
committees witnesses, il is proper for me 20 notice
or S % Tha. State. h
that .s one 1T IN the items Of costs given BY me
whereas the s@ a%s only y senis fas
suIm sum witness. Had 1 been settling
the law and been disposed to make q double
charge, might have done 50, perhaps, with
gu, sPIrehensisn Of any objection by her: but it
II hardly probable that would undertake to do SO
with her counsel 80 familiar with bills Of costs in
criminal courts. The fact Is that the witnesses sum
moned in this case having all been discharged when
the case was postponed account Of alleged illness
Of the defendant, had all TO be summoned a second
time when she became conyals scent enough to 20 10
trial.
THE CHARGE OF ERAsURE.
Inere Is one case as TO which there was testimony
before the committee which does not belong 10 either
ol the classes OF cases mentioned and may be prop
cry rsieTrsd to in this place. This is the of
yohn and Edward Hope, fined for assault and bar
NIy $50 each, without costs. The return in this
seshows only $50 paid by each OF these defendans
my cash book charged my self with so for each
defsndant, and in my private book Of memoranda,
nnd an entry made on the day of their conyiction
Stain the nne at $50 each. Ny return made on the
Slst OF March was made from the court docket and
on thar the hgure IS Is crossed out and the fsure
y substituted. When this was done. bv whom or
with what authority, Peither myself nor the eiert
or his deputy can say; but II this circumstancis \,
be made ground OF presumption against me- il might
be well 20 consider first neither IL the alteraf re-
ferred 70 3 TO be ascrbed TO could have been so
forgetful as 70 have left recorded I'm the cash book al
the court and In my private memoranda a charge
against myseif OF larger amount than that which
returned. This Is the true explanation Of the matter
far ss am concerned, and certainly the clerk
conid have interest N ma KING tba chance no