Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-01
THE BUTLER FORGERY
CASE. -...---.

Trial of R. ~. ButIer on the Charge
of Forging the Name of n Pension
er-Failure of the Prosecution and
Acquittal of the Accused.
From the Washin gton Patriot, Jan. %
The public mind, which for several
months has had it's attention directed to
Roderick r. Butler, member of Congress
from Tennessee, in connection with a
charge duplicating Linn with the forgery
of pension checks in fraud of two pensi-
Oners in the State, was to-day relieved by
the abandonment of the prosecution in
face of overwhelming proof that the ac-
Cused acted under legally delegated an
thority, and in good faith TO the Govern
ment and to his clients. He stood indicted
for forging the endorsement of Mrs.
BeTthamy Farmer upon a check of the
Raleigh On. CO. National Bank, dated
Oct. %, 1869, for $4T3.12, the amount
then due on her pension certificate, and
also forging the endorsement of Rebecca
J. MaddrOn, upon check of same date
and bank, for $120.6s, likewise due as
pension to that time. The defense chal-
lenged the jurors, Benjam Summey,
Abram Depew, r. J. Wood, and James
W. Barrett, whose places were supplied
by others, whereupon District Attorney
Fisher opened the case to the jury, Tecit-
ing the facts thereof as they came to his
knowledge, and which will be sufficiently
gathered from the following admission in
writing signed and submitted by the
counsel Of the respective parties.
ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT.
United States vs.. Roderick r. Butler,
arraigned on two indictments, as herein
before mentioned.
Gin the above cases it is admitted by
the defendant that on the 22d day of
October, 1859, he wrote to Charles II.
Belvin, United States Pension Agent at
Raleigh, n c., requesting him (Belvin)
to forward to him (defendant) the checks
described in the indictments, respectively;
that in pursuance of said request Belvin
obtained from the Raleigh National Bank
the checks described in the indictment,
and the Goth day of October forwarded
them by mail to defendant, who received
them Oct. %, 1869, at Washington,
and thst on the 29th of October the de-
PENDANT endorsed the name of Berthamy
Farmer upon the one check and that of
Rebecca j. Maddr0n upon the other, said
Farmer and Maddron being then IN North
Carolina, and under said endorsements
wrote his own endorsement, and passed
said checks to the banking house of Jay
Cooke d Co., at Washington; that said
checks were received, endorsed, and
passed as aforesaid by defendant at
Washington, ID. G. In making this ad-
mission, however, defendant AYERS that
in the case, No. 1878, be had proper
authority in writing from Berthsmy Far
mer authorizing him to make said en-
dorsement and in No. 8, S74 he had the
oral authorization of Rebecca J. Msddron
to endorse her name and draw the money
on said checks respectively"
Fisher and Harrington for the Govern
ment; Riddle, Miller, and Davidge for the
defendant.
By ACRE ement Of counsel the reading
of the indictments was waived and the
the defendant entered plea of not guilty.
1t was determined to try the defendant
on the indictments separately.
The Government then called their prin-
Cipal witness, the prosecutrix, whom il
soon became apparent, from her manner
of testifying, is possessed of scarcely an
ordinary degree of intelligence. She dis
claimed all recollection of ever making
her mark TO any papers prepared by the
defendant except TIE printed blanks used
in making up the original application fol
her pension, but could not swear posi-
u, ! 80 al,
She testified to signing, by mark, paper
prepared by Solomon Ham, justice OF
the peace, from memoranda furnished by
the pTOseCutrix, containing statements
of purchases from time to time at Mr.
Buffers store, in TaylOrville, Tenn, bu
witness was unable 10 give an opinion a:
to whether the agg egste of her purchases
amounted TO $50 or $l00-she had nC
idea Whatever Of it. She said she hsC
bought few goods of Mr.. Butler, and h
once let her have $50, and that is all she
had received. The paper alleged to hav'
been executed before Justice Ham wa
shown her, and upon its being read to he
she replied that sit sounded mighty lik'
the paper she signed" but she could no
swear positively.
The power of attorney alleged to have
been executed by her to Mr.. Butler, be
fore a notary public in MIR. Buffers office
named DOnnelly, and present witnesses
Nathan Brooks and wife and two clerks
named Smith and Butler, (the latter In
defendants son, was shown Mrs. Farm
or, who denied signing it. She was ais
shown vouchers and other papers iron
time to time executed by her in the cours
of the prosecution aud collection OF be
claim, all of which she thought she di
not sign, but would not swear positively
The counsel produced duplicate list
interrogatories prepared at the Penslo
Office and ,rwarded TO Mrs. Farmer 70
her ans weTs, which they receive d, bu
which she also denied having given. Sh
said she did not learn until last June 9
July land then from msn named Blew
in) that her application for pension hs
been successful. Her husband was
soldier in the late war, and died in 1866
She had two children, hut could not te
the age of either.
Frederick VI. Clark, a clerk in the Per
sion Office, testified to the preparation c
the list of Undergraduates sent Mrs. Farm
er from tina. once through the Postmis
tress Taylor, at Horse Greek, N. c., ar
identified the copy shown him as the on
filed by the defendant.
The pTOserE'i IA here rested their cas-
THE DEFENsE.
4. l iOaIelly the notary public b