The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-06-30
THE CLINTON CASE.

~ THE CLINTON CASE.
The Superior District Court room was
crowded Tuesday morning with those inter-
ested In the case Of the State vs. Charles
Clinton, suit on the Auditors official bond.
OF all the litigious battles in which that Off.
cial has been engaged none has excited more
interest. and as the decision would have some
effect in State securities public attention to
the matter was great IT, US t4
The petition sets forth that Clinton as Au-
ditor gave an official bond for $4,000, with
Chas. Menard, G. E. Slayback, Wm.s Dillon.
IT, MsSchwarz and Geo. G. Benham as sure
ties It further alleges that Clinton has not
well and faithfully discharged and performed
all the duties incumbent on him as Auditor
of Public Accounts, in that he did on the 18th
December, 1873, make settlement with one
L. E. Bentley, tax collector of Ascension,
and did compel him to transfer the amount OF
his collection to him (Clnton), the amount
being $40, 1876 81, and which sum Clinton
kept in his possession until April, 1874, in
violation Of law.
And again, on 14th October, 1873, Clinton
made a settlement with the tax collector OF
Carroll parish, r K. Anderson, and received
from him $4236 ~, instead OF ordering An
derson to turn over the same to the Treasurer,
and also in the case Of Z. D. Hine another
tax collector Clinton received S9916 "a,
which sum he retained possession Of, and in
the case of tax collector T. J. Heron, he re-
ceived and retained $1165 belonging to the
State, instead Of ordering the collector to pay
over the same to the Treasurer.
The petition further sets forth that in the
wear 1879 Charles Clinton misapplied the
sum of $4,000 belonging to the current
school fund by apportioning to the common
school fund the whole amount Of city taxes
for that year, only $3.50, 81 43, while true
distribution of the taxes entitled the current
school fund to $500, 483, said act being
violative of his said bend. t
| Further, that Clinton, in 1873, Of the whole
amount Of taxes, misapplied and diverted
from the Interest Fund, and credited the
same to the General Fund. $269, 1853; and fur
ther, that he misapplied SIC, 744 36 of the
School Fund by applying the same to the
payment of State Assessors. ~
The State also alleges on the 9th day
of August Clinton did illegally issue war
rants to Gen. Longstreet, there being no ap-
Precipitation for the same, and six others to
| Benham, Wands, and others, all contrary to
law. t53
| And in conclusion that he, notwithstanding
the fact that the appropriation bill Of "a had
been passed and was declared unconsfltu-
tional, and notwithstanding that issuance OF
warrants under the same had been epjoined,
he issued and caused to be funded by the
Funding Board said warrants, thus making
the State liable by his illegal action Cor the
last six warrants
The answer of Clinton, after denying plain
tiff 8 allegations, sets forth that on the 9th
of August, 1874, in his capacity as Auditor,
he issued certain warrants on the Treasurer
| in favor of Gen. Longstreet amounting to
| $50, 600, under judgment Of the Superior
District Court, and that in that suit the State
was represented by the acting Attorney Cen
eral.
That also, in the year 1874, he issued war
rants upon the Treasurer to G. @. Beham for
s34, 500; ]. B. Wands, $l4, 372; E. W.. De-
Mathews, s145OO; j. H. Oglesby,
$50, 4O7 SO But he AYERS that by the
appropriation act of IA, appropria ion had
been made for the payment of claims fol
which these warrants were issued, and he
issued them under the advice Of the Attorney
General.
The State was represented by Attorney
General Field, j. B. Cotton, B. r.
Forman J. O. A. Fellows and r. 81. Mari.
and Clinton by Semmes 4 Mott, G. s. Rice
and A. Il II. VOORHEES,.
After the witnesses had been called, num-
Der were found absent, and attachments
we're issued, which delayed the opening OF
the case. The books Of the Board of Liqui.
dation were then asked for.
After the reading Of the petition and other
pleadings, counsel for Clinton admitted the
correctness of the bond upon which the suit
was brought $500
Col. c. W. Lowell was the first witness
called. He stated, after being sworn: II have
\ been, and am new, amember of the Legisla.
ture; was in the Legislature in 1873 A;
was in the city March, 1874, sick abed. y
Being shown voucher, says he never saw
!. it before. ct was for $14,27S, and was. pro.
duced by theAuditor, purporting to be signed
2 Lowell, per Geo. T.. Benham.)
1 Some discussion took place as to the char
hacter Of the document
4 Mr.. Semmes argued that it was mere
memorandum of the vouchers contained in
Sthe several envelopes produced. ....
Ne claim was made that MIR. Lowell ever
,isiened it. According to the custom of the
.lnffice such memorandums are made out and
filled with the vouchers.
d Attorney General Field said there was nc
,1nistake about the matter. He said he would
how tell the gentleman on the other side, and
with all his boosting about wanting ful. ex'
u Elimination in the case, he did not appear now
20 care for it. The Attorney General said
II hat the defense claimed it was mere mem
;. srandum, when actually it was receipt pur.
'borting to DO signed by Lowell. It reads
p,s Received SHAFTS" and signed BY @. W.
howell per his attorney. eft this paper il
lot evidence" he said, eve might as well
lie Top this case, and tell the people we can not
:. fosecute public officer before our courts. "
Mr. Semmes retorted that the call was moi
70 |ade for this paper. The call was for the
ps Suchers; not for private papers kept in the
cd kce. It was. q mere memorandum, and i
:, AS produced only as such. He said that the
I 4orney General wanted the defense to ADOPT
D. = paper or voucher an office memorandum
" Ech was child's play. This is the first
ds u We had notice of this, said he, land We
~ 9Adiate the idea that it was produced as ar
oainal document.
OF hs Judge ruled that the paper might &C
K in,r what it was worth. 1.-The State " be
IS s& Is r,nst rrosecute her action the same a: