Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-07

/
special bailiff
To DAY--The Court met this morning at 10
o'clock, and the jury were brought 10 by the
Sergeant, :,
E.. 8, Lsadbeater was re called and fixed
the night of meeting on March 7, 1876.
Cross examined-Tbree questions asked BY
the defence. as to the custom of the President
and other officers to receive moneys on other
than meeting nights, and not paying them In
at once, were overruled by the Court, and ex
ceptous taken to the ruling.
T.. S. Lasdbeater resuming-Was unable to
say whether the entries 10 the members books
were correct or not. The receipts should bear
date on the meeting night, and if money was
paid at any other time. would properly be
dated at the subsequent meeting. he kaeW
that Mr.. Shinn received money at other times.
| l.. E. Uhler was recalled and fixed date OF
payment of tho Avery check. He presented
the annual statement for 1875. which was OBJ
jected to by the defence, but admitted by the
Court and exceptions taken. The check OF
Avery was paid on August 3lst, the same day
the statement was made. A meeting was held
on the first Tuesday 10 September for the cleo,
| ton of officers. No officers were ever elected
| in January 80 far as he knew.
4. II, OBrien testifed-Assisted Mr.. UhIer
ia overhauliug the books of the association.
The entry on Mr. Gregory's cash book showed
| the money paid Sbinn on March 7, 1875. No
entry of Avery's check ap;,E AIRED on the book
neither was there one IF Margaret Rsmey's
| account, or of VIM. Davis or s. f. Gregory.
Cross examiued-Mr. Gregory's cash book
was always balanced by him (O'Brien) on the
morning succeeding the transactions, before
Mr.. Gregory's arrival at the store. The entry
Of tho money paid Shinn was the lsst one on
the cash book for March 7, 1876. He some
times settled the cash book on the same night,
but did not know that he did so on the date
mentioned. There were some pencil marks on
the books which had been rubbed out, but they
were he thought, merely footngs OF columns
J. H. Reid rccalled-Fixed the dates when
the Ramey and Davis checks were paid.
John Z. Robinson tifed-Made payment
of money to Shinu on March l., 1876. OF bis
(Robinson's) office.
Cross examiued-Fixed date by date of re.
ceipt, did not know tbat it was correct. Shinn
had been In the habit OF taking the money from
him az an accommodation.
A. II. Smyth testi6ed-Was Treasurer of
the Association and recelpted to the Secretary
for monies received. Sometimes received money
between meetings, but 10 these cases did not
receipt OF the titne. The receipts Wsre given at
Shiuu's Office. Had never received the checks
shown from .Shinu, as Treasurer. lie gave
paper receipts at meetings to the Secretary, aud
they we're subsequently transferred to book
and sigoed. He presented deposit ticket
which had been made by Slim August 81,
1874, showing deposits of certain checks and q
cash sum of 1865.
Cross examined Believed that the prepare
ton of the Secretary's statement would occupy
several days. Was one of the original mem.
bers. The stock was subscribed for, and an 10.
stal!acent paid 1T the first meeting. Several
other persons were present and subscribed, ba-
sides those whose names were signed to the ar
tices of agreement produced 10 Court yesterday.
Could not remember whether he was stock.
holder or not at the time when the paper was
signed.
A question as to whether other parties were
engaged in the organization was ruled out by
the Court and the ruling excepted to.
The Commonwealth here rested its case.
The defence moved the Court to exclude all
the evidence. and pending the argument of that
motion to exclude the jury from the Court
room.
Judge Lowe declined to exclude the jury, and
overruled the motion, to which the defendant
excepted.
]. H. Reid recalled-On tho day after the
meeting OF March 7. 1876, the sum OF $65l.l7,
was paid to him as Treasurer.
The defeccs stated that they had witness
whose testimony was important, but as 1t WAS
addressed to he Court aud not to the jury, they
would proceed with the case and reserve the
right to introduce the witness at later stage.
The argument was then commenced by Com.
monweath's Attorney johnson.
MIR. johnson in opening said he desired to
remove all outside extraueous matters which
had been introduced. 1t was claimed that this
vas persecution and not prosecution. He
repclled the idea that there was any desire to
ersccute the prisoner. He was the proper
officer to institute the proceedings, and he alone
was responsible. He further asserted that no
consolidation of the charges could have been
made, moro than had been done. He comment
ed at length on the charge Of persecution and
bounding on, which, be claimed, was made for
the purpose Of working on tho natural feelings
of the Jury. The prisoner had chance to tes'
tify in bis own behalf but had declined to
do 80.
Mr.. Stuart objected to the allusion to the
prisoner not testifying.
Judge Lowe ruled that the alIusion was ad
missable.
MIR. Stuart said that he hoped, 10 short
tme to show the Court decisions to the co.,
trary.
MIR. johnson, resuming, discussed the law
as bearing on the case in hand, and the indict-
ment. He also reviewed the evidence as
reported above. Sbinp, he claimed, was the
only officer of the association who was author
| izsd to receive money for it. The others might
receive as matter Of accommodation, but the
association was not bound by ,neir action. The
annual statement prepared by the accused did
not conao Any credit for The check, and was
made with MIR. Smytb did not show the check,
and it was singular if that alone of all the
checks was converted toto money. He also
| called attention to the conversion of the checks
| on the German Bank of Ramey and Davis.
| There was nothing in the charter to forbid the
| Secretary from receiving money outside OF the
meetings. ;.
MIR. Stuart asked if there was anything al
loaOing him to do 80.