Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1880-05-07
LIyIncsroS.oH TRIAL.

|. Gont'nued trom Jourth pdge.
at that time. He was the last one to get
his pay; the rest had got theirs and had
gone home; he did not see them that
day. This was on issue day when he got
his rations; it was some time i'll the af-
ternoon when he left the office to go to
the store. Thirty crackers were given
him.
Capt. VIM. L. Dougherty, recalled
Being shown day book, said it belonged
at Grow creek agency and was brought
from there by him. He knew the hand
writing on certain pages; said it was
Henry =. Gregorys handwriting, who
was clerk at Grow creek agency under
DIR. Livingston.
Prosecution then offered in evidence
certain entries on these pages under date
of December II, 1876, and February, 1876.
Witness was then shown ledg-
er and said it belonged to the Grow
Creek agency and was found by him
there in the safe, and recognized the
hand writing Of certain entries of the
same date as in the day book, as that of
Mr.. Gregory, and these entries were Of
fered in evidence. Witness being shown
a cash book made similar answer, and
the entries of the same date were offered
in evidence.
The defense said they would not OBJ
ject to the admission of these books,
which were records of cash received from
MIR. Violin and M. X. Armstrong,
and showed this cash to have been re-
ceived in three different lots, one lot
from Mr.. Violin on Dec. II, 1875, and two
from NJ. K. Armstrong: one in Feb. LIST,
1876, and one Feb 14th, 1876, aggregating
s24S.25, received as stumpage money, if
they could be allowed to show the facts
as they were; that when DIR. Livingston
was satisfied that the money was where
he could get at it any moment, he cred.
tied it up as cash received, but that he
had actually received no money into his
own hands; but that unless this explana.
ton was allowed they did object to ad.
mitting this evidence as immateriaf.
The books were, however, admitted in
evidence and the entries mentioned were
read and shown to the jury, and also in
entry of date June 80, 1876, showing a
paying out to the chiefs of the Yankton.
las Indians $24S.25 on account of stump.
age.
This closed the examination of the
prosecution in rebuttal with the excep.
tion of few questions omitted in the
examination of Mr.. Hudson, which will
be asked in the morning. The jury were
then discharged for tonight and the de-
fense made the following offer of proof
We offer to prove, the prosecution
having offered in evidence, and the same
having been received, the books marked
XXX, Xxx, xxx, by DIR. Livingston and
other witnesses, that Mr.. Armstrong and
Mr.. Violin, the parties named in the doc.
tors books, were the contractor and sub
contractor Under the United States 70,
putting in three hundred and thirty-one
cords of wood from the Grow Creek is
land named in the voucher here in evi
dence; that Mr.. Violin, the sub-contractor
desired to deliver the wood, which wa.
cut under the contract, which this de
fendant refused to permit him to do 1ln
til the stumpage thereon, amounting tt
forty-tive cents per cord, was either pait
or secured; that thereupon E. E. Hud
son, by an arrangement with said Voli1
and Armstrong for becoming their secur
ity, informed this defendant tina
he had made an arrangement will
said Armstrong and Violin, by whicl
MIR. Hudson was to collect the vouche
or vouchers received from the govern
ment by them for putting in this wood
and that he would be personally respon
sible to the defendant for this stumpag,
money, and that the defendant was a
liberty to draw upon him for the same a
any time, if he needed it before sale
vouchers could be collected by him
thereupon the defendant permitted til,
wood MS it was cut to be delivered to the
soldiers. AS report of its delivery was
made to him, he charged himself upor
the books with the amount thereof in
cash. That this wood was delivered a,
three different times rs named therein
to-wit: Dec. II, 1875, and Feb. 1st ant
14th, 1876, and the defendant charged
himself with these different amounts a.
they were SO reported to him, anC
that he did afterwards draw upon Mr.
Hudson, and that before said voucher.
were collected, and that they were pait
as narrated here by the witness, Hudson
and that the disbursements given il
evidence by the defendant himself anG
the witness, Hudson, that in no Other
manner did the defendant actually have
any custody or control of this money.
This offer was objected to by the pros
ecuting attorney; and then followed al
argument on the offer and objection.
The court adjourned until 8 o'clocl
tomorrow without giving a decision.