New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-03
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT,
Auditor Clinton ON Trinl.

oy the otter and admission of the letter O
Auditor Clinton to Assistant Attorney Gen
erai Dibble, of August .6, 1874, referring t.
the Injunction and Benham's warrants
that the Auditor left the city before they
were signed. but that they wera made Out
before the Injunction vas issued and asked
advice.
The books OF the Board Of Liquidation
were then sent for
Mr.. F. Dubuclet corrected his testimony
OF the third day. adding to the reason fol
for refusing the Longstreet warrants. tina,
there was no appropriation, that there waa
nothing stated in them as to. the cause o,
issuing; can not tell how much money came
into the treasury without the bOoks; the
Treasurer does not know how much ia due
from tax collectors, and has no means ol
knowing except from the Auditor; no dis
tinctiOn is observed between taxes and pen
alties IA the Treasurers books, tho bulk
only being given in the Auditors order..
No questions by the defense.
Numa Durand testified le was clerk OF
the Secretary of State and kept the minute
book of the board Of liquidation, which he
identified
Colonel Field .eat the minutes Of Angus.
26, q and -, pages twenty nine. thirtytwo
and thirty-three. showing only the Auditor,
Treasurer, Secretary Of State and Speaker
Of the House present when the Benham
warrants were discussed. The minutes did
II. -, ,>,t
recorded.
To NJ. Voorhies the witness stated he
was not the clerk of. the board at the time.
Mr. +. Galloway was called and being
asked what warrants of the Pinckney Smith
characte: were selling At. Mr.. VOORHEES, OBJ
iected.
Colonel Field said the State vas entitled
20 sue tor breach Of the bond.
The court said the question came within
the rule restricting the testimony. The
case must be confined to showing the Au
ditor lad no law for issuing Sl3S,o0O. Ii
there was law for it. no matter what the
consequences were, the Auditor must be
discharged. No matter how corrupt the
motives were if the issue was authorized by
law. Any testimony to chow the illegality
of the act was inadmissabie. What the
market value was had 40 bearing on the
case.
Coionsi Field said the object Of the case
was % show the Auditor issued warrants
not only on doubtful, invalid but forged
vouchers. That if he issued it under an
law it was the same as if
under no law. Every man is presumed to
know the law. and the Auditor especially is
required 20 know and may sllege the IN.
of the law. The case of
Soloman & Simpson against auditor Gra'
ham Is in point.
Mr.. Voorhies called the attention OF the
court to the fact that the Auditor was not
charged with paying forged vouchers.
The court said the same question had
been decided the day before. This court
can not take into consideration the char
actec of The conduct Of tho Auditors ofics.
The Legislature has expressly reserved
that power to itself and the Criminal Court.
Colone! Field said he thought all these
matters could be inquired into civilly: but
t no went into the Criminal Court with
them the result might bs more disastrous
10 the defense. II not permitted TO prove
official misconduct. the very object Of tho
nauicy. the case was gone. How would it
20 if tho suit had been brought on the gem
,ral allegation Of illegally issuing warrants.
Judge Hawkins said he was at loss to
Know how it was the court had not made
tself understood. The court takes notice
# its own Jurisdiction. and will permit
nothing to be introduced that is not within
{: nothing outside Of the issue Of demand
or money.
Colonel Field asked how the suit should
,e brought on bond, Like Shylock. he
TODD on his bond.
Judge Hawkins-If ycu are not careful
'ou will lose ycur case like Shylock, he |
eeded drop of blood to perfect his.
Colonel Field-We don't want blood: we
My want meney.
Jud.e Hawkins-You seem to want tho !
ound Of flesh as much as Shyloek.
Colonel Field took the usual exception to !
be exclusion of the testimony.
Mr.. S. H. Houston testified he was tax |
of st. Tammany in 1873, from
bout first Of June: settled with Auditor
rs: July II, paying $f4ll Sc; no warrants,
, him and the Treasurer. paying the
uditos ss3f &C cash: that was the only
me he settled with tho Treasurer: lchsck
|; tho next settlement was made
etween October and Is, 1873; don't recol-
ct whether $500 or $1,000; it was given to
le Auditor; was pushed for time, and gave
10 money to the Auditor, taking his
'ceipt: the next settlement was third
December, about; was in money or
,eck.; about $500 OF $1,000; both settle-
ents made 1857: 63 paid to Auditor; think !
+. Sholtz obtained the receipts from tho
reasurer; never paid any attention till
is case came up; made last settlement in
ovember, 1874.
Objected to by Mr.. Rice Of tho defense,
at the time was sfter sll the dates Of the
legation.
Judge Cotton stated the petition alleged
9 money was still detained.
Nr. Voorhies insisted the allegation was
payment in 1873. and the question was of
pney received in 1874. If the investiga
N was merely for penalties there was no
lection.
Judge Cotton said the object was not the
nalties, but to show money was received
d not paid to the Treasurer.
The court said this was again recurring
the attempt of investigation, and ap-
ared to be collusive-the one side en-
ayorino to show the Auditor 3 very bad