The New York herald., 1873-01-31
law required at their hands. II they did that it
would be


Dy that Board and the individual members TO
pass upon them and give certificate upon the
have have investigated the them. The question Of fact
then becomes whether they did meet and audit
and upon that question comes IN all this evidence
OF fraud in the accounts themselves, and of this
alleged participation OF the various parties greater
less, In the proceeds OF this audit because that
tentiona and with bad motive, for the purpose OF
OaS end & BY ws q
amount, Or by which false and spurious claims
ultimately participate. that is q neglect OF duty,
not only wiifully but carrying with it
A STAIN MORALLY AND LEGALLY
infinitely deeper and grosser than that OF simply
neglecting to meet and perform the duty to which
n s
shall call your attention to Davds0n's claim, with
view Of asking you to pass upon the the question
such action as the law requires with view to as
certain Its Justice, and whether the defendant was
guilty .,,, Of neglect Of duty in respect to
action, and I think that brings the ques-
ton In this case very sharply before you.
against the Supervisors for safes. The voucher is
lost, but the warrant gives us the date, for 1t
as Sl Mare t "a s
It must have been sent in after March "a, and, as
Mr.. Davidson says, prior to July l. It was an
tssued on IL for <aQ IN 40 Mr. OavtdsOn aweara
that no never knaw NJ the aIteration of that
account and that when he came to Woodward for
pay, having been sent lor by
ao s e
mitted to see the face Of 1t, but 1t was laid face
would get his check He laid hold Of 1t and Watson
kept his hand on IT and said, "Put your name
there" and ne put his name, without the "Co,"
ON the back or the warrant, ana check LOT $l6s40
was given MIN: and that ended MS knowledge or
the subject. lie did not know That the amount IN
the warrant was dillerent from the SIC s40, and
$4sl7O AZ paid. According 10 the
TESTIMONY OF MR. STORES
tnis accouut was IN itS proper place at tne tlme
tnat ne ana Mayor HAL made examination, ana
contalned upon II certlncate signed by the de-
lenuant ana Connoily ana perhaps py tne Mayor,
o or tnls may pe one wmcn Mr.. Han did not sign.
ms MS y one o. unose accounts wcn nave peen i0st.
NOW, ~ lon0Whg N .nis transactioh ntlle iurther
VIII oe aDe 10 reacn sne point ~ wnicn the de.
iendanI Is connected WIN II IN another Iorm. You
ave cviuence which prlngs none " MN tne certl-
presented M q SHOT. tme peiore Dy MT: DAVIDSON at
Sio;yao. HOW aid ~ get changedY VINO made tne
aGai1,ont meao NOT know. we can @ assume M notning
interested parry VINO IL Is not Ior us 10
aseertain. ~. we are now on tne inquiry not VINO
Count was as guilty Of Negligence in % ascertainias % its its
true 'i. cnaracter. ana whetner tne deienaant was
HuiitS oi i. .negnge1ce IN thVesugasng tnat acc0unt
was the character OF tne account Orlginalyf
FOR SAFES FURNISHED
tne county court rooms ana omces between March
Ine couFt rooms anu omces TO which $49, lIO AZ
vo Wortn o.. OF saies were furnished IN Twelve daysf
was tueIS fny Inquiry az 10 tne cor
aectness oI snat accounC inc county omces
are mere. Diu any pVHrV meet anu pass on tnaC
s4si7o ~ worth Of safes had BEEN 'r bro%aSt To
these court rooms and omces surrounding this
DuildingY Are you satisfied That the slightest in
qulry on that subject would have developed that
the account as presented at ITO AZ and allowed
was an absolute MlsehoodS Did any officers OF the
S0ard 0v, taoe a tne sgntest nj pains TO make any m
sWer tnat question: All the direct evidence on that
subject Is contained In whatI shall now call your
$4,000 The second is the fact that 1t was swollen
to almost 10000 by somebody. The third one Is the
.,,. >, % EVIDENCE DEN 1, OF DAVIDSON WILSON n
Auditors. He never appears. Be never swears to
his account or furnishes any evidence of it what
ever. And, lastly, and what may be deemed, per-
haps, OF as much Importance as anything else, that
when that account was paid 1t was paid by check
s sv fS amount to was
the whole amount passing to his credit; and BY
have been deposited sy him that day liz CONNECTION
with other iteEs OF which q certain sum was
Is the true termEto the debit
which sum Is about twenty-four per cent on this
exaggerated account. Stand upon that alone and
what reasonable conclusion would fonowY speak
Of this transferred for the evidence OF the bank
officers and Mr. Tilden shows that where the
transaction was one OF debit and credit between
two accounts done in the bank one day, the thing
was done so that the bank paid out no money, but
carried the money Of one to the account OF the
other, and this appears to have been OF that char
acter-simply transfer OF credit.
THIS is SINGLE TRANSACTION,
and you might say that 1t may be shown that the
credit OF the defendant was not OF that character,
and that the debit OF Woodward was not made up
of items Of that character and that the $50 900 10
the credit OF the defendant that day will be
shown not TO have been OF that character, or to
have come from some other source, or to have been
q payment OF some debt. All these forms of ex-
PLANTATION and so many more that ingenuity
could suggest are open, OF course, to meet
the attack Of testimony OF this kind and 1t was for
the defendant to have furnished you with the ex-
not from has own testimony, for
nothing con be deduced from his not going on the
stand. The law enjoins that on you and me. The
must come from satisfactory trans
actions to account Tor having the deposit.
IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL EXPLANATION
II is submitted to you, what is the reasonable de.
duction that occurs to you from the credit Of
twenty-four per cent OF Davdson's account,
swollen from $16,940 to $49,170 42S Take either
mi ha n rd w ar 10 fha