The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-23

". ~ ba'tuWJ oVV. ~. u. FtcHOliS, 6eCfebaFy
of State W. A. Strong. Geo. W. Mott, Acting
Attorney General J. 9. Egan, Attorney Gem
eral Ogden, Geo. =. Crane, Jules Tuyes ana
AuRuste Hoffman.
After the jury was ernpanelsd and sworn IL
stood ne follows:
VIM II. Deeves, }. Bchwab, 9. O. Zehler,
Clemens Huensr, James Heaney, G. A. Mil.
tenberger. Arthur Hyle, Paul GusrIngsr, II,
?. Walton, L.. Houln, w. Il. Hepp, J. Curtis
Waldo
ALLEN JUHEL
was then called and sworn for the prosecr-
ton by District Attorney Finney.
Question Capt Jumel. you are the Auditor
Of Public Accounts for The State Of Louisiana?
AUswsr-f am, sir.
Q.-Are you acquainted with Mr.. George w.
Dupre, the accused In this case2
Al am, sir.
Q.-Do you know Of any official position
that he occupies or has occupied In this state?
Ale held, until recently, the position Of
State Printer
Q.-Was he the Official State Printer on tho
twentieth Of March, 1887
He was.
Q.-As official State Printer. did he present
TO you, on that day, this bill, described In the
Indictment document shown to wtness)2
Was this bill and the certificate attached pre-
sented by Dupre as State Printer TO you as
State Auditor on the twentieth Of March,
1887
Alt may have been presented earlier or %
little later, but 1t was presented by Dupre as
State Printer.
rob nt hfs
the detailed bill, and stateif he presented that
to your
Ae-Yes, sir.
Q,-What Is that paper
A.-That is certificate or affidavit Of Mr..
Dupre to the correctness of the bill. tAfidavit
read by witness.l
Q-That document purports TO be- an affi-
davit as required by act No 10 Of 1877
A.-Yes, sir.
Q.-It is the affidavit required 10 be made
by the State Printer on presenting bills to the
State Auditor for work done by him as State
Printer?
A.-Yes, sir.
Odd you administer any oath 10 Mr..
Dupre2
A--No, sir.
A.-Eo, sir. Mr.. Dupre presented me the
bills and said, There Is my oath and affi-
dayit."
Q>-Then there WIS no affidavit made be-
fore you or oath administered
Ae-No, sir; simply what you see Il took his
bill as correct.
Q.-You went through no form whatever
A,-No, sir.
Q-You didn't ask Mr.. Dupre to raise his
hand and swear to iti
A,-No, sir.
The District Attorney-Ma 1t please the
court, we abandon the case.
Judge voorhies, Of counsel for accused, |
then addressed the court as foIlows:
May 1t please the court, we are taken by |
surprise by the motion Of the district attor- |
ney, stating that he abandons this prosecu- |
tion for the reason that no oath had been ad- |
miRIstered to or been taken by the accused. |
Wehaye been cruelty disappointed by the |
stern course OF events, as we earnestly desired |
and were prepared TO prove affirmatively the |
entire innocence Of the accused.
The prosecution Ia all it's bearings, includ- !
Ing the proceedings had before the several
severe hardship on Mr.. Dupre.
:, we came here Tor the purpose OF meeting |
the Issues upon their nerfts, and we did not |
purpose to rely upon the weakness OF
the ty tSs svidenee ss..o that might be brought
1t proof OF our guilt, but we came here deter
mined and fully prepared To prove our entire /
Innocence. From the very inception Of these |
1t has been our only aim and |
purpose 70 try the case ON It's merits, and we
have sedulously avoided sill recourse to any
ground Of technical character. ALI we de- /
sired was an opportunity TO prove our inno-
cenee.
The indictment itself is essentially defec-
tive and motion to quash must eventually
have prevailed. The counts In 1t are liable 10 /
the charge OF duplicity. They are eontradie-
tory; they charge two inconsistent things
l he first is, that no work was done according
10 law; and secondly, that the prices which
say that no work WAS done and in the next
mat the price charged for work was
illegal: The finding Of an Indictment by this
grand jury constituted, as 1t Was, is liable 10
! grave obiection-one which went to the very
organization OF the panel OF the grand jury
grand jury that has been set aside by this
court upon proper proof of iroe5 irregulart-
lies. We knew these irregularities, but we
iidn't intend TO avail ourselves Of them, be-
,ause we felt strong in our position OF lnno- ]
y prove. It,. When the INDICTMENT
was preferred by the grand Jury,
he accused was on his way from New
York to this city, where he arrived the very
evening that the indictment was presented 70
,he court, and the next day he voluntarily Z
made his appearance with his counsei 10
.ourt. waived arrai9nment and entered plea
II not guilty, and moved to have the ease !
ixed for immediate trial.
repeat that the circumstances which COM
,el the abandonment Of this prosecution |
ear heavily upon, and cause Us profound dis
as we had made every prepara-
ion for full trial, and were confident Of our
.biIity to vindicate our character and clear it
rom every shadow Of doubt or suspicion that !
his prosecution might have cast upon it.
Gov. McEnery then addressed the court az
ollows:
May it please the court az associate conn Z
el Of Judge VoOrhies il this cause. made
nth him q thorough Investigation OF an the !.
and facts connected with If. /,