The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-21

uaS NC h"" SOmetninG over ntDe uOiuEs
(makIng ad aggregate of fifty dollars and
fifty cer...sl he stated that be did not dis.
cover that be had a twenty. y.dollar note In his
possession unit! his return to Petersburg on
Monday the l4th instant, and that then it
occurred to him that some mistake had taken
place in the payment TO him by the secretary
Of the society.
RUFFIN's ADMISSION.
He nevertheless admitted that he changed
the note and used 1t, IL never crossing his
mind that he had received it from the door.
keeper of the House OF Delegates. The wit.
ness made other statements which were IRE.
levsnt, and bis testimony throughout struck
the committee as confused and contradictory
and wholly unworthy Of credit. The com.
mttec, from testimony in the case, which
they bave endeavored substantially to pre-
sent to the House, are unanimously Of
opinion that r. d. Ruffin on Saturday the
18th instant abstracted from the book OF
the first doorkeeper thirty dollars to
which he was not entitled, and that his
subsequent use of this money is couclu-
siYe that be took 1t with guilty intent ;
that bis statement that he received the
money from the doorkeeper, and that lin
eject he did not know he had more than be
was entitled to, is wholly discredited by the
committee, and is contradicted by his testi.
mony of the various payments made by him,
which involved Of necessity some axamina.
tiou of the amount in his possession.
VIEWS OF THE coknIrTBs.
1t can hsrdly be supposed that party
having 10 bis possession funds TO the amount
of seventy dollars, If bis statement be true,
could make payments at different times
amounting to near fifty dollars without
some knowledge Of the denomination OF the
money nor is it more than possible that ln
thst amount 8 note for twenty dollars coulo
have escaped observation. The fact that the
sum distracted as aforesaid consisted in part
OF a twenty dollar note, and the admission of
Ruffiu that there was no note of that de-
nomination in the funds possessed by him
previously TO the payment to him by Crit
tendeu, and the further admission that he
used the note on his return to Petersburg,
are, In the judgment of the committee, con-
clusiye OF this case. Had this money been
paid 20 Ruffin by the doorkeeper through
mistake he would, il his purposes bad been
houeu. Immediately upon bis return to
| Ricbmond have sought Colonel Crittendep
snd rectlfied the error.
1N.1cUsABLH CONDUCT.
Even if he bad spent the money prompt
| acknowledgment Of bis couduct and
tender of repayment would nave gone
very far to relieve him Of intentional
wrong. But be did not do this.
He waited until be was confronted With
the charge; was agitated and confused,
and only after repeated interviews, 10
which his conduct Was marked by equlyoca-
ton, consented to nske reparation. His
10 hal hats tDa II
and thirty dollars before the payment TO him
| By Crittenden is discredited clrcumstantially
! by his order TO Jorgenson, and directly by
bis own testimony. Putting the amount at
thirty dollars, and adding thereto the sum oil
six dollars for one days pay (Which he must
have known was all he was entitled toy and
the eigh. dollars received from the society
and we have the aggregate, as before stated,
Of forty-four dollars. Yet his expenditures
| on his trip home amounted to forty.one dol
lars and fifty cents, and left balance in his
pocket On bis return of over nine dollars.
Boaus ATTORNEY.
| When asked il he had any other means o
| getting money beyond bis per diem as
| member OF the House Of Delegates, he re
piled that he bad that he was practlclns
attorney, but he gave no account Of any fee
| which bad been recently received by him
| except one for twenty dollars, which h'
stated was paid to him in Fredericksburg
some fifteen days ago while on visit to thai
cty. His assignment OF certificate O
| five days' pay to Colonel Crittenden wal
an admission that be had The amount o
thirty dollsrs to which he was not entitled
| and his effort to show that this fact wa
| unknown 10 him while be was actually ex
pending it WAS vain ard frivolous. Ii th
person was ignorant and uulettered thl'
might plead in extenuation Of his conduct
but ne is man OF education at least sufficient
to entitle him TO license to practice law
and is therefore rghtfully amepable to tn,
measure Of the strictest justice. The com
mittse Ia this view have unanimously deter
mined to recommend for adoption by tht
House the following resolution
Resolved, That r. ID. Rnf6n, delegate IL
the General Assembly from the county o
Dinwiddie, be expelled from the House o
Delegates.
TIE REPORT ADOPTED.
The report was adopted by vote Of O.
toS.
| Ruttiu has been in numerous scrapes, nn'
| has made it q rule always to come out q
them in a manner disadvantageeusly to him
self. He is quite deeply in debt, anon
others to the colored Senstor Stevens, wh
went security for Rutfin in the purchase c
! the latter's wedding suit. Stevens had a
| order from Ruffin to draw the last days pa
due him. Ruf1in asserts that he will be rt
elected by the people of Dinwiddie. Mer
brag!
The CommonweRlth's attorney Of Rich
mond is considering the propriesy of indic
Ing Ruflin for petit larceny.
| THa FIRE ON SATURDAY.--On Saturda