The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-15

Benham was in our office about March II b.
He presented q lot of vouchers. Being shown
the Benham vouchers, says: This is my
writing on the envelope. These are the
them. I havnt seen them since they were
presented, but think these are the ones.
The Attorney General then asked about
other vouchers, when Mr.. Ssmmes objected.
He said: We have been brought here only to
try one case-about the Bsnham vouchers
Attorney General suppose, your Honor,
we are to have re-enacted in this court the
same as was presented in the Superior Dis
trict Court. We desire to show that these
warrants were divided into parts, SO many for
Benham, SO many for Devices, SO many for
Mathews. I could have alleged in different
counts all these facts, but did not desire to
do go. We want to show that these were
brought there by Benham.
Mr.. Sen mes-I do not know what the At
torney General means by the re-enactment OF
scenes which occurred in the civil case. That
is still pending. The Attorney General has
charged that we have issued illegally certain
warrants. What he may have chosen to do,
we do not care. suppose he chose the name
ofGeo. G. Benham, because it sounded sweeter
to him, and smelled more of fraud. We are
here to answer whether the Auditor issued
warrants to Gee. G. Benham traudulently
Did he issue these knowing them to be such,
and was the issuance illegal?
Suppose all the other vouchers we're fraud
ulent. We are only charged with the fraud
ulent issuance of one set. We come now be-
fore this court and this jury to try the Geo.
c. Benham warrants, and as said before we
suppose it was chosen because it was con-
sidered more heinous.
The Attorney General-I desire to make an
explanation.
Mr. Semmes-I prefer that the rule should
be followed.
Col. Field-As said before the other side
will drive me to file more informations, and /
warn them.
Mr.. Semmes We have been threatened in
the other Case with criminal prosecution
Now we don't care for it.
Col Field don't desire to show any feel
ing in this case, and nobody can drive me
into showing any feeling in the matter. de-
sire to show that Benham drew these war
rants, ASST gning SO much to this one and SO
much to others. No one applied there for
warrants then; he was the first and last in
these warrants. All this I intend to prove,
and the defense says I can't prove, because l
did not put in four counts. Does the gentle
man contend that if 1 alleged that Clinton had
stolen $1,000, could not prove $4,000?
Mr.. Semmes-Now. your Honor, you will
see the proprietv of following the view for
which we contend. We have been invited
into this court to discuss whether the Auditor
did fraudulently issue certain $34 900 in war
rants, and nothing else.
He devoted much time to the calculation
of this point.
The Judge ruled that he must confne the
examination to the S34, 500 warrants.
Col. Fields it possible that am confined
to the mere examination Of these vouchers
and can't show anything else? Can 1 not
also show other transactions? 1 expect to
show they were all the property of Benham.
The Judge-Then will allow you to prove
they were the property of Benham.
Testimony resumed:
"Benham presented vouchers to me for
examination, about March II or IS, 1874, in
amount S13S, 200. No one was with him. II
received them. / took couple of hours, or
less, in examining them. l went over the
whole amount in that time. By Benham's
indication 1 divided the warrants up into
different sums. He said must give SO many
to one, SO many to the other. He gave me q
memorandum and I issued the warrants
without reference to the identity of the
vouchers"
The Benham vouchers were then offered.
II knew these vouchers were good because l
had seen several under the same Act so, ap-
preparing SJO,UUU lOE Luo pay mout VI Out-
standing vouchers in 1872"
Col Field then read the act.
sThat is the act. l helped to issue the
warrants, or believe I did. The vouchers
upon which sos, 900 in warrants were issued
are III the Auditors Office. l never have ex-
amined them. / am not an expert. These
1916, 900 in warrants were issued / do not know
upon what vouchers The issuance did not
impress me any more than the 500, 900 the
State Printer got.
1.-THE vouchers appeared to me to be the
vouchers contemplated to be paid in the ap
preparation bill of IA. act SO. The act had
been published when 1 examined the
vouchers. presume so.
Referring to book, says: cit is the 18th.
l don't know which is the Destiny memory
or the book Neither are worth much. This
is the stub book"
The Attorney General here read from the
stub book and next exhibited the act SO OF
1874
q think these vouchers are the same /
erased on the stub book on account Of diff
ferent distribution of the warrants. never
made any calculation of how many warrants
were drawn by Pinckney Smith"
Being shown the vouchers, says: 81 did
not fill these up. They were filed up by Mr..
Mooney. They were made out the same day
L ulduo OUT Inc Warrants. L nave So6u lHCh-
ney Smith. l was not in the Auditors office
in II. / had no evidence that the indorse-
ment was Pinckney Smiths Endorsement on
the vouchers"
The Devices warrants were then shown:
"This receipt is in Dewees's handwriting.
The Lowell and more vouchers were then
produced and offered in evidence. They
formed quite large bundle.
Il filled up these warrants the same day,
March IL, that the vouchers were. | gave the
warrants either to the Auditor or the warrant
clerk.
"My memory is Indifferent. The Auditor
came home and I delivered them up. My
attention was not particularly called to them
except by the inquiries of Benham. He
didn't inquire especially for me but simply
asked whether the warrants had been signed
or not 1 could give him no information"
The Attorney General questioned witness in
reg ard to the proclamation of June 10, 1873.
Witness said it was an executive order, ad-
dressed to nobody in particular; that it was a
call for all persons having claims against the
S ate to present them. Knew that under this
proclamation vouchers were presented Knew