New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-02
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT.
Trial Of Auditor Clinton.

soon after ten o'clock. and the courtroom
was az crowded as before.
Mr.. F. Sholtz was again placed on the
stand, for the conclusion of his direct ex.
animation, and said: He saw the vouchers
for the first time when they were presented
tor the warrants; to ascertain il they were
valid, looked at the appropriation bill, saw
there was money for them and that they
were approved; did not know there were
forged vouchers then; knew of the proclama-
ton requiring claims to be submitted to the
Auditor; some were approved by the
Auditors solicitor; did not consult him.
but passed the vouchers without consulting
any one: think he, Mr.. Stoutemeyer, had
| gone to Washington; do not recollect when
ne returned, but il was before saw the
warrants in the hands Of the warrant clerk;
don't know the name or signature of F.
Schumacher, but passed the voucher; did
| not examine the voucher for $4,000 in favor
OF j. Pinckney Smith to see if it
was correct; il was properly in
dorsed and presented by proper par
| ties; examined but did not pass vouchers
uAAOA 0OV ANVs w VI lCtC OlU AOU AuUW OuL
standing ones were considered Cancelled.
Refused approved vouchers because Of in-
functions. The appropriation bill was pro-
mulgated when the Benham vouchers were
passed. Refused Mr.. Weymouths vouchers
on account of ibjunctions. The voucher
for $l4,278 for G. w. Lowell is in MONEYS
handwriting. The books only show when
warrant is made out, not when delivered
it doesn't matter when it is signed. Devices
did not present the vouchers OF get the war
rants; did the same with those as with the
rest. Generally examine the signature, but
was satisfied by their presentation by
gentleman knew; those not known would
have to be identified. Devices never called
on mo to mako out Bad arrant. Consider
Mr.. Benham q respectable man; the re-
ceipt is signed by him. Mr.. Wands never
called for or spoke about any vouchers;
Mr.. Benham signed the receipt for him.
The large amount did not excite any sus-
picion; tho vouchers were in accordance
with the appropriation bill; knew that the
signers were the proper ones; knew P. Jones
Yorke was member Of the Legislature;
knew Carter, and often saw his SIGNATURE
did not know Brewster personally; he was
Speaker of the Hnuse; did not know his
signatures; Wands often called between
March " and August q: don't think he
asked about the voucherr; did not consult |
anybody on the validity of the vouchers;
they passed out Of mind when they left my |
hands; did not know whether the Attorney |
General was in the city or not during the |!
him for any opinion; Judge Dibble acted in
August; understood the Auditor from March !
II to August q did not feel authorized to !
issue the warrants, on account Of the bjunc- /!
ton; don't know if he consulted the Attorney |
General in the matter; BenhaM's e345C !
are all Pinckney Smith vouchers; would |
have made out bushel if they had been
presented; did not know any better; tho |
Oglesby vouchers are all but ono Pinckney |
Smith vouchers, receipted for by Benham.
and the warrants made out at the same
time; never saw the letters attached with
the vouchers; the letter 10 dated in septem-
Der; saw the warrants last in August; do
not issue warrants; they were issued TO six
different parties; there was nothing to i'm
press the matter on my mind; the testimony
before the committee IS substantially cor
rect, that $4,000 OF $4,000 were at the
same time rejected; don't remember the
Of Smith warrants; they were
not separated.
Colonel Field proposed to offer the vouch- !
ers only for tho purpose of showing tho
character Of the vouchers on which the
Auditor issued the warrants.
Mr.. Scholtz, continuing-Mr. Victor is
the clerk, and makes settlement with the
collectors. The Auditor looks over tho pa
pers and administers tao oath 1 have .
supervision when the Auditor is absent:
know L. E. Bentley, tax collection Of A.
cension.
Mr.. Semmes hero objected to offering tes-
timony in three following sections in the
petition:
That the Auditor, December 49, 1873,
L. E. Bentley to make . settle
ment with him BY transferring elO,l ,l26 81,
which he retained till April 1874; that Oc-
sober IA. 1873, he did tho same with r. K.
Anderson, of Carroll parish, receiving
b4236 q; from T. D. Hine &99l6 81; and
bll65 from F. J. Heron, oil in violation Of |
aw.
Mr. Semmes argued there was no allega-
icn of intent to defraud the State; that
he money had ultimately reached the State
Treasurer, and tho State had lost nothing
There was distinction between Q criminal
for embezzlement and q civil
liability. There is nothing for tho court to
ound judgment for money upon, for how
much money 10 it For violation of duty |
he remedy il in . criminal court. The
Auditor is the book-keeper Of tho State,
avested for some purposes with judicial
overs, but is not authorized to receive
ime for the State. If he should abscond
nth the money it would be no defense for
ne tax collector to allege he had paid it to
he Auditor. The State could prosecute
Vickliffe for his fraud, but, as it never
lffered by it. it could not sue him for the
mount. Handling money when unauthor-
ed by law is not an official act, and his
,reties are not liable for it in this suit.
Colonel Field said the first question vas
,e of pleading. The defense having de-
led the allegation, it was too late to de-
ur, because the State could not amend.
be bond was given for faithful perform Il
ice OF duty as the law requires, and
,ainst the clause with penalties the State
Is assigned breaches. Wherever an in