Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-10-28
WILMINGTON. DEL. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 49, 1873.

the same known to some one ; once in absence
OF witness Mr.. Lewis took money from the stamp
account, but so informed Mr. Pyle, aud when
witness returned he obtained statement of the
amount from Mr.. l..
Mr.. Thomas was recalled and testified that on
one occasion he gave Mr.. Lewis $40 from the
stamp account and put into tho box the custo-
mary tag therefor that he put the box and tag
IN the saie himself before leaving at night, and
when he opened the safe (Which had not been
locked) the next morning, he found that another
entry OF So had been made upon the tag durino
the pight there never had been a place for
keeping the stamped envelopes since witness
had been in the offioe-14 or Is years since MIR.
Dougherty had been In the office the clerks had
been taking their own salaries. but when Mr..
Pyle was there he always paid them himself.
MIR. Higgins here rested the examination of
witnesses and Mr.. Harrington, of the counsel
for the defence, proceeded to address the Com
missioner He coutended that not one breath of
testimony had been adduced by any witnesa to
connect MIR. Dougherty with the crime alleged
that there was not even suspicion, Ilet alone
fact. upon which heeould be held. The charge
was Que OF stealing, and it must be shown that
MIR. Dougherty did the stealing. deficiency
had been proven, but the prosecution had utter
ly failed to fasten that deficiency upon the ao.
cused or to prove that he had created H. Mr.
Harrington, therefore, moved that Mr. Dougher-
ty he discharged altogether and that he be not
held to answer this charge, on the ground that
1t was not proven that a single dllar was
criminally taken and put into his own pocket.
The testimony brought to hold Mr. DonRhertv
would hold any other man in the office. and All
might be held on the same testimony It will
not do to hold him, because he is chief clerk.
Tor II 30 the postmaster himself becomes the
thief and the responsible party. Mr.. Lewis
might hold Mr. Dougherty on his bond, but not
for criminal prosecution.
Mr.. Gordon claimed that Mr.. Dougherty was
guilty of no criminal act, and that the most
which could be ohHged against him was negl-
gence or DUTY. And il MIR. Dougherty is thus
guilty. Mr. Lewis ID equally culpable with him
IN swearing to fasaaccounts and making fraudu-
lent returns to Washington. To create GRIMM
ahly the intent must be proven, which had
not been done, and therefore no legal offence
had been committed. II criminality was sought
it must be sought higher than in Mr.. Dougherty;
go y little higher and 1t will be found.
District Attornsy Higgins made the closing
idreSs, III which lie SAID that MIR Henderson,
through the Post Office Department, was prose-
outing MIR. Dougherty under the 45th section of
10 Postal Laws for wilful neglect to re urn the
monies of the p0st-0fiice to the u s. DEPOSIT
tories, thus creating case Of embezzement.
lie himself thought it was felonious transac-
ton, but was glad the case was different in view
OF the penalty affixed and the taint which at
taches to the crime. The defense leave ont one
important, fatal fsct in this case. MIR. DouRher-
ty Is under the postmaster and is cashier. The
stamps 30 from him, the money is returned to
b IN and he must account for it; when he fails to
~ account for that which the Government puts
lnto his hands he faiis to say what had been done
with II, and ID therefore culpAble. The case is
not one of theft but is equal to 1t in
the gravity OF the crime. The accounts ought to
show that ", 1913 SO were deposited with the u
5. Ass stant Treasurer on the 7th of October but
the receipts only showed that $500 had been so
placed TO the credit of this post-ofice and
coupled with this is the damning fact OF $196 81
taken from the money order box to make up
deficiency in the stamps account The RESPONSE
bility OF the post master does not acquit the
prisoner. The evideuce shows that the post
master reposed the greatest confidence in his
lhief clerk. The deficiency has but one dste-it |
began when Mr.. Dougherty went into the office, |
and ended with his retracy from it. Mr.. Gam |
brill can't be hsld for he went three times week
to his chief and told him of the deficiencies that
existed The safe was in the control Of Mr.. |
deficiencies had been created and |
traced into his hands for which he could not ae-
:oupt.
Mr.. oommissioner Smith thought IL was not
necessary to prove the intent as the case did |
not come WITHIN the scope of the common law |
but under statute. He denied the motion for |
he dismissal Of Mr.. Dougherty and held him in |
$4,000 for his appearance at the next term OF the
Y 5 District Court in January.
The examination occupied about six and a-half |
lours, and was patiently listened to throughout. |
This morning, Mr.. Dougherty appeared before /
U. 3. Commissioner Smith and gave bond in /
he required amount. IL. f. Plckels. + J. Ben |
nett Samuel Caruthers and Patrick Holland are |
80