The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-10-08
THE CASES sAGAIHsrsERGEANT LEE


EXAMINATION WAIVED AT THE POLICE
COURT-AT THE HUsrINGs coURT-vER
DICT OF ACQUITTAL ON ONE OF THE IN
DICTMENTs-THE OTHER CASE TO BE
CALLED TO-DAY.
The case Of City Sergeant Newton NJ.
Lee, charged with uuIawfully and felo.
niously obtaining money from the Auditors
OF the State OF Virginia in connection with
the clothing OF prisoners In the city Jail,
was called In the Police Court yesterday
morning. The accused. through bis coun.
sci, waived an examination. and the case
was certified to by the Police Justice to the
Hastings Court.
II was called in the Hastings Court about
2 O'Clock in the afternoon. The prisoner
was represented by Judge w. w. Crump
and Messrs. Samuel B. Witt and Henry w.
Hobson. Captain George ID. Wise and w.
w. Cosby, Esq, appeared for the Common
wealth. Considerable time was spent in
selecting jury.
After the Jurors were sworn the prisoner
was srraigned and the indictment read by
the cleik. Mr.. Lee stood up motioness,
and kept his eyes steadily 6xed on the clerk
during the reading Of the Indictment, which
was very long. The accused pleaded not
guilty. and the clerk then read The follow
ing charge to the jury:
Your charge, gentlemen OF the jury, is
10 inquire whether he be guilty Of the lar
ceny Of which he stands indicted or not
guilty. ii you find bin guilty, you are fur.
ther TO inquire whether the goods or chattels
stolen be- Of the value Of $50 or more; ana II
you find them to be oftbe value OF $50 or more,
you are further TO ascertain the term OF bis
confinement in the penitentiary at not less
than three nor more than ten years; and il
you find the goods and chattels stolen to be
OF less value than $50, say so and no more; {;
and II you find him not guilty, say so and
no more. So hearken to the evidence"
At 4 O'Clock the court took a recess for
dinner until half-past 5, and the jury and
prisoner were placed under the charge OF
the officers OF the court.
AFTER RECESS.
When the court met after dinner the
hearing OF testimony was begun.
The first witness called was Auditor John
Z. Massey. lie was not in the courtroom
when bis name was called, but appeared a
bali hour afterwards; the court in the
meanwhile waited Tor nlD.
Mr.. Massey, after having been sworn,
stated that his attention was not called di-
rectly 10 Mr.. Lees account until April.
The witness wanted TO explain how his at
tention was first directed to the matter, hut
it was decided TO be improper for him to
tell this. He found the accounts OF Mr. Lee
for February 10 be S67l.25. A considerable
portion OF that was alleged to have been
u, ed for furnishing clothing to prisoners in
the city Jail.
The witness said that Hally Bright,
prisoner, was charged with IS for clothing
in February, and Mr.. Lee had received
S27 80 within twelve months prior to that
month for clothing for this prisoner. He
told Mr., Lee in April that his charges for
clothing were more than they should be.
When Mr. Lee brought his account for the
month Of March 10 the Auditors Office Mr..
Massey thought that he recognized in IL
some OF the same names that appeared In
Mr.. Lees account for February. The
names Of the following prisoners: N6ttie
Bibbs, Obedent Bray, Nat. Campbell,
John Coleman, Claiborne Cunningham,
Lucinda Davis. Mary Evans, Peter
Epps, Fred. Gibson, Isaiah Gregory,
Sarah Jefferson, William johnson. John
McLane, Mag. Melton, William Pryor,
Thomas Randolph, Alexander Richardson,
James Ryan, and Others were on Mr. Lees
clothing account for February. aud were
also on his account for January. The
amount OF money paid to each exceeded the
amount allowed by law for one year. Mr..
Massey also said that il had been the custom
at the Auditors Office to pay accounts OF
this character which had been certified TO by
the court, without closely scrutiniZing
them. He did not examine Mr.. Lees ac-
count for February, but trusted the matter
to clerk in The Auditors office. As a gen.
eral rule, when the Court certifes an ac-
count. the presumption is with the witness
that the account is correct.
Late Deputy.Sergeant HoIzinger was next
called 10 the witness-stan6. He testified
that he swore TO the account in question
being correct before the clerk OF the Hust-
ings Court, but did not make il out. He
said that Dir. Lee was sick when the ac-
count was sworn to by him (the witness).
and was suffering from injuries sustained
by being thrown ont Of a buggy while car
rying Angelo Baccigalupo TO the peDiten-
tiary, and be (Lee) did not see the account
at all, as he was confined to his bed at the
time IL was prepared.
Mr.. Andrew JInkius, clerk OF the court,
next testified. Mr.. Jinkins said that the
city Jail accounts are brought In every
month and passed upon by the Court. IL
has been the practice with Mr.. Lee and his
predecessors to furnish clothing for the pri-
soners and afterwards render their accounts
to the Court, who certities them to the Au-
ditor. The account 10 question was in the
handwriting OF Mr.. Adam Lee, and the wit
ness was unable TO say whether the accused
ever saw il, as he (the accused) was sick
when it was made out and sworn to by Mr..
HolZinger.
NOT GUILTY.
The Commonwealth's Attorney, address
ing the Court, said that since it has been
disclosed to the Jury that the prisoner at the
bar never made out the account or swore TO
its being correct he could not make out
ease against him on the indictments upon