The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-10-18

committee was chartered by the Legislature
the accounts were kept on the small private
cash-book, Just as they have been lately
kept, and before its charter DR.. Baird was
the general manager, as he was before the
trouble, and kept his bank account in the
same way. DR.. Baird often gave bis own
notes when funds were needed, and the Gus
tom was started OF keeping 1.-TWO =. ac-
counts-one in his own name ant the other
in the name OF the committee, the former
being kept because DR.. Baird was enabled
to get discounts.
THE ENTRIES on THE CASH-BUOK
were made bv witness when be was in the
city. VERY few entries appeared in DR..
Baird's handwriting. Mr. Sleight explain
ed further that he (witness) was responsible
othe committee as its business agent, from
whom he received his appointment and sal
ary. OF course, if DR.. Baird had directed
him to do anything that he thought injurious
to the committee he would not have done 1t,
although he acted under his general dlrec-
ton. The defence next proceeded to prove
through Mr.. Seight that the treasurer, Mr..
Gennet, who was q member OF the COM
mittee, was aware of the fact that there was
balance of s., 900 unsettled by DR.. Baird,
and that the committee really took no no
tice OF it. II any one OF the committee des1r-
ed to know DR.. Baird's Indebtedness, so far
az that book showed they could easily have
found it out. Asarule, all the notes renewed
by Dr. Baird passed through Witnesses
hands, and he checked on the funds as busi-
ness agent on one bank, and signed DIR.
Baird's name as attorney on checks drawn
on the other bank. When note was given
for the payment of an Indebtedness 1t was
signed by E. T. Baird, and when they were
about to fall due the time was known to the
witness, and were paid by his checks or re-
newed. There was
NEVER ANYTHING SECRET OR CLANDESTINE
in the manner OF conducting the business,
and at any moment DR.. Baird'S indebted
ness could have been ascertained by the eX-
animation Of the book kept in the store by
Mr.. Sleight Just as easily ms it was finally
determined.
Witness, in reply to Judge Crump, said
that Mr.. Charles Gennet, the treasurer,
sometimes endorsed DR.. Baird's notes as an
individual, except where his official sigma
ture was necessary.
The defence next introduced a copy OF
the records OF the committee to show that
in June, 1869, the committee passed gen.
eral order directing the business agent to
make monthly reports to the committee,
showing the state OF business, &c.
There was no regular account on wit
ness's books between DR.. Baird and the
committee. The witness next turned in the
private cash-book to January, 1877, where it
was found that the printing bill with which
DR.. Baird was entitled to be credited
amounted to 81, ,949.75, and that this amount
was never paid to DR.. Baird, but his account
merely credited with the sum. The rates at
which Dr.. Baird did the printing for the
committee were based on the prices charged
in New York and Philadelphia, and might
| have been below the rates charged in this
city, and in some cases were below Rich
mond rates. The policy Of the committee
was not to make money on the printing. Dr.
Baird was busily occupied in the service OF
the committee. He lived plainly, and so far
as witness knew was not eXtravagant in his
private life. He superintended the publ.
cation OF the two Sunday-school papers, and
read all the Ms. Of the books that were pub
| Iished by the committee.
The witness next described the method
of disposing OF the receipts and vouchers.
They were sent in by him with his regular
monthly statement to the treasurer, Mr.
Gennett, and he handed them to the com.
mttce for examination. They were then
sent back and filed in the store.
TIE TEEAsURER's TESTIMONY.
Mr.. Gennet, treasurer Of the committee
was sworn, and testified as to his duties II
the concern. Whenever there was MONTH!
balance due from DR.. Baird the business
agent would give him ticket stating tht
amount, and next month that balance would
appear in the statement, and would be pait
| by DR.. Baird; but that was settled in some
way between DR.. Baird and Mr.. Sleght. lie
| (witness) was aware OF the fact that DIR
Baird had two accounts-one in the name
OF the trustees, and the other in the name
of +. r.. Baird. The business agent fre
uuently informed Mr.. Gcnnet that DR.
Baird's private funds and those OF the com
mittee were kept indiscriminately together
but he was not aware that this fact was eVe
in any meeting brought to the attention o
the committee, although he himself was
member of the committee. DR.. Baird wa
generally present ut the meetings OF tht
committee. There was no concealment O
the matter on the part Of the witness, how
ever.
Judge Fitzhugh at this point was recalled
and asked by the Court whether he wa:
aware that DR.. Baird used indiscriminately
the funds Of the committee and his own
and that they were kept together. Judge
Fitzhugh said he never was made aware O.
it. Before DR.. Baird went out, within tht
last fifteen months, there was an auditing
committee to examine the monthly reports
but he did not remember that there haC
been q regular finance committee. He eX
amined and audited the treasurer's &C
counts. He never examined the busines!
agents account.
The record-book Of the committee wa:
next introduced, in which was written th'
monthly statements of the business agent
The witness stated that he might have as
ccrtained the balances due by DR.. Baird i
lie had looked at this record-book.
A SUDDEN TERMINATION OF THE CASE.
Mr. Gennet was proceeding with his tes
timony, to the effect that he really knew
nothing OF the books OF the business agent
and did not even know that the monthly
reports of the business agent were in the
record book OF the committee, when there
was an interruption.
Judge Gnigon remarked that the commit
tee seemed to have been religious concern
whose operations were carried on rather by
faith than in any other way which amused
those present not little.
The Judge further stated that he coult
see no necessity for proceeding further
that there was no evidence, as far as he couIt
see, to warrant further examination.
Mr.. Wise stated that he was OF the same
opinion, and had thought so for some time