The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-01
That year They we're numbered 1871 to

that year They were numbered 1871 to
| 2019 ot . series.
The State then called the Courts attention
to these wAfrAnts. as they purported to have
been issued one year after 1873. They were
scattered all over the State, and were drawn
without any appropriation. The indorse.
ments on the back, he said, were doubtless
forgeries. Sometimes 1t was J. w. Arm.
strong, and SON etimes it was j. w. Arm
strong & Co. These warrants have been paid
into the treasury, and were issued on vouch
ers by Clinton.
An agreement was then made that afte,
the trial the warrants might be withdrawn
and used as original in the Supreme Court
after proper receipts for them had been
given to the clerk.
Mr.. Fellows. on behalf of the State, then
offered q portion of the warrant stub book Of
the Auditor, showing the date and to whom
the Armstrong warrant had been issued.
Theodore Lipschuts I was clerk of the ser
geant-at-arms in the Legislature for 1874.
kept the books. was also clerk of the spe.
cial committee to investigate the books of the
Committee ON Contingent Expenses for 1872.
1873. never saw this Armstrong voucher.
I know there was no dealing between the firm
of J. w. Armstrong & Co. and the Legislature
in 1878. l examined the books of this COM
mittee in the Auditors Office. was furnished
with all the vouchers of '73 by the Auditor.
copied the name of the payee, the amount
and for what, for all the vouchers of the ses-
sion of 70. don't know of firm of j. w.
Armstrong.
All the stationery was furnished the Ser
geant-at-Arms by Madden. He furnished
everything. No firm of j. W. Armstrong fur
nished anything. attended the meetings of
the committee, Of which was clerk. They
met in the Sergeant alarms rooms.
Being shown the Armstrong voucher, says
he never saw the Endorsement of J. w. Arm
strong. Does not recognize the hand
writing.
To Mr. Mari: "Having looked at the in
dorsement on the back Of voucher, and hav-
ing compared it with that on the back of the
warrants, should say
Objected to by Mr.. Semmes, who said:
"The witness has been asked whether he was
familiar with handwriting. He said he was.
He hns been asked whether he knew the in
dorsement on the back OF the warrants, and
he answered that he did not. Now the At
torney General desires the witness to compare
the Endorsements on the voucher and that on
the warrants, and he wants the witness to de-
eide which is genuine. They want COM
parison to be made between two unknown
signatures, between two handwritings, both of
which the State alleges to be fraudulent.
can not see the object of this testimony.
What if they do not correspond. If we have
been imposed upon it was the duty of the
Treasurer to see and protect the State. I
eskR The Attorney General if he would re-
tr6ot his assertion that the Endorsements were
forgeries, but he refused"
The Attorney General said that the gentle
man forgot that the Treasurer does not issue
warrants. when the Auditor issues his
warrants the Treasurer is called upon to set
tie. As will be shown before we get through,
these warrants were taken in from the tax
collectors in settlement with the Auditor for
years past. The Auditor, in introducing the
warrants in evidence, admits the genuineness
of the signature on the back. We desire to
show, if the Court please, that these sigma
lures are all frauds, and the evidence is ad-
sit is singular that when voucher for
$14, 700 is presented we see such pile or
bunch of warrants issued. Another singular
thing is that these warrants came back again
through the settlements of tax collectors all
over the State. This is suspicious. We desire
to show, too, the animus of the Auditor. We
desire to know who this man J.W. Armstrong
is, who can come to our State Treasury and
carry away $4,000, and no one knows who
be is.
Mr.. Marr-If your honor please, by the
petition filed in this case, it is
charged that the State Auditor issued war.
rant to J. w. Armstrong & Co. for $40, 700 il
legally, and that he is liable for the same.
Now, wben this voucher was presented to
Mr.. Clinton he was authorized to issue his
warrant to J. w. Armstrong for the amount
called for But now suppose should have
carried this paper into his Office and asked
him to issue warrant to me. Would, or
could he do it The State owes J. w. Arm
strong & Co., and the Auditor must have his
genuine Endorsement, or he: cannot issue q
without it. It is his duty to see that
lue care is used. have no doubt that they
will prove that in the Auditors Office they |
AXE great care.
The Court interrupted him, and said he
thought the time Of the court was being taken |
up by these stratagems.
Mr.. Man indignantly is the first |
lime have ever been accused Of taking up
he time of the Court. Does your Honor |
'ule out the testimony?
sSThe Court-The Court has given no init |
nation Of that fact.
Mr. Marr-We'n then 60 into the PROPOSE
ion of law. And he went on in calm,
manner, to state his case and |
easons for admitting the evidence.
The Court-Mr. Mari, please confne your
elf, and stop that harangue.
Mr.. Marr-Never, in the course of my
career, have I addressed COURT in terms
'ther than those of respect, and would like
o receive some.respect from the Court.
The Court-Mr. Mari, sit down, sir.
lon't want any more of this. want lawyers
o stick to the points at issue.
Mr.. MARI will sit down, sir. in compli-
nee with the order of the Court; but 1 |
bought the State could be heard. I protest
gainst this
Mr.. Field thought some indulgence ought |
o be given attorneys in the conduct of their
asses. The State was entitled to the evidence,
nd it should be admitted.
Mr.. VOORHEES, said that until the State had |
withdrawn its bill of exceptions, they could
ot question the genuineness of the sigma
ure.
The Court intimated that he would sustain
he objection of Clinton, when Judge Cotton
or the State arose and said that he thought |
hat the question had not as yet been duly
laced before the Court If the Auditor was
op in hi pupnoso. IL he doc;vod 10 a.,