New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-01
H. ORLEANS THURSDAY JULY l. 1875

......e...aeI...es. .aa.aea.aa..esE
dorsement at all; am familiar with hand
| writing TO some extent.
Mr.. Mar desired to ask Che witness if th,
Endorsement on the Vouchey was the sam,
as those on the warrants, aud Mr.. Semme
objected unless the Attorney General would
retract the statement that those Of the war
! rants were torgeries.
Mr.. Semmes argued that, as che witness
did not know Che signature Of the voucher
il was not competent Tor him to testify b,
| comparison with those the Attorney Gen
oral called forgeries. IT the State admitted
the signature of the voucher to be genuine
he had no objection. but the State endeav
ored to PROVE that q fraud. and had oh
I jected to the admission Of the document OF
that ground. The proper way tor such 9
comparison was with signature admit
ted TO be genuine, and 50 considered
BY the court, to ascertain if the other sigma
ture be genuine. But here is an offer to
compare series Of signatures with an
unknown signature, and what would be the
result, or why should the State be allowed
to do sOe The Treasurer must identify the
! payer, and the Auditor had nothing to do
with il.
Colonel Field said the warrants we're not
only issued by the Auditor. but returned
again to him by the tax collector and he
| gives directions to the Treasurer what and
how to pay. and what portion OF the taxes
| are to be received in warrants and what in
| money. This will not be denied. and there
fore the Auditor is more directly responsi-
bic than the Treasurer. By offering the
voucher the defense has admitted the gen.
uineness Of the endorsement upon if, and can
| not dispute tho handwriting. The State
now wishes to prove the forgery on the war.
rants. Here are about fifty warrants issued
on . single voucher anG scattered in ten
different parishes. It can not be pretended
they wero delivered to J. w. Armstrong,
and from this may be inferred the neglect
Of the Auditor. The court should not ex.
pect positive evidence. but admi. whatever
bears indirectly on the case to infer viola
tion of law by the Auditor. whose duty it
was to guard the Treasurer from paying on
illegal warrants.
Mr. Marr stated by the amended petition
it was charged the Auditor had illegally
issued the Armstrong warrants, and that
NO such debt existed. When the voucher
was presented to him, admitting that in the
absence OF anything else it was sufficient to
issue warrant on, it was his duty to ascer-
tain if the debt was due, and see that it was
discharged, if Armstrong had properly as
signed it. and if the proper party was be.
fore BIN to receive the warrants. Tho
point was whether he had been satisfied that
the indofsemen: was genuine. and if it was
any one could see that those on the war.
rants were not 60. If when the warrants
were returned he did no. observe that. he
was derelict in bis duty.
The court checked Mr.. Marr with the re.
mark that too much time was being taken
up. and the point not being presented to the
court.
Mr.. Mari, femarking that he never had, in
the course of his practice. endeavored to
occupy the time of the court in discussing
anything he did not consider material, but
that he was always ready to obey any order
Of The court, resumed his seat.
Colonel Field endeavored 10 present the
point again 70 tho court, remarking that
counsel should be INDUCED with some lati.
tude in discussion. and that nothing was
intended to be presented that was not i'm
portant.
Mr.. VOORHEES, said the objection Of the
defense was to the nature OF tho testimony.
1t was necessary to have q genuine sigma
ture. but the State took one it declared to be
. forgery. The defense had yet had no wit
nesses. and had proved nothing Of the Gig
nature, but let it rest for what it was worth.
The State wished to consider it forged for
one purpose for its advantage, and genuine
for another purpose, to the disadvantage Of I
the defense.
Judge Hawkins said the court did not !
sanction the admission as genuine sigma
ture, but as voucher for which warrants
we're issued; to be ascertalned subsequently |
whether forged or hot. The test could not
DO taken by such q comparison. because the
.enuineness had not been established. If
he Auditor paid on a forgery. it was for
lim Co justify afterward.
Judge Cotton argued il vas competent
or the State to show by the witness and by
dessrs. Douglas and Soule that there was
! fraud in one OF the other.
Mr.. Semmes ended the discussion BY stat
ng his client had instructed him 60 waive
he objection. and Mr.. Mari continued the
Mr.. Lipshuts then testified that the In
Orsements on the warrants were in differ
mt hands. in different inks, and in no case |
ompared with that OF the vouchers. Nos. !
97lh, 1873. 1881, 1890, 2O06, "a, were in
inglish writing fluid, and q moro delicate
nd better handwriting than the others
70. 2Ol9, for e796 IS, vas in blue ink, like
he indorsemeHt of Clinton, but not the
anne, that being darker, nor like any other.
he writing was similar to Mr.. Clinton's.
To Mr.. Semmes-Was hot in the employ
the sefgeant-atarms in 1879 and 1873,
ut was in 1874. II
Mr.. f. Scholz testified he was chief clerk
the Auditor; that the entry in the stub /
ook for the el3S,55 30 was in his hand |
riting, made by him for the warrant clerk,
no was absent at the time, to assist him
I'd facilitate business; it was made March
7, 1874, and the warrants made at the
me time, for Mr.. Benham, and made
1t to Lowell, Wands and Oglesby at Z
8 request; Mr.. Clinton was away at the
me. and the warrants could not issue:
ey and the voucher we're handed to the =