Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-05-27

four dollars per month, in cash, excepting
two dollars allowed her for cleaning the
room and five dollars tuition due her by
Hugh Harrison for his child, which hye
he agreed TO SEQ paid to the city, and there
py made the equivalent TO cash received ~
her.
His attempt to counteract the damaging
effects of his own receipts by claiming In
effect that the same were dictated TO him,
and that he gave Miss White whatever re-
eeipts she asked for, is too ridiculous for
belief; and il such could be the fact
it would certainly demonstrate the utter
unitness of the accused for the position he
has been occupying, and such claim Is also
shown TO be groundless by the testimony
of Mrs. White. The claim that the pay
ment of sixteen dollars into the treasury
on the End day Of Jnly, 1881, is equally
groundless, and seems to have been suggest.
ed by the fact that the same amount had
been paid in by Mrs. White the day pre-
yious to the credit on the city's books. The
evidence of Mr.. Dunaway, the City Re-
ceiyer, seems clear and explicit, hat the
credit was properly entered by him from
information received from the accused at
the very time of the payment to the city.
Another significant fact of this credit Is,
although the accused presented the re-
NClpl0 u lAC CNClNCA ANA hNo-AI W. ~
ment made by him into the city treasury.
the receipts of July End. 1881, is conspicu-
ously absent, the most important receipt
he could have had, and if given for e n
would have clearly proven his story. be IT
as it may of the payment OF July End, 1881,
the committee find from the evidence that
the accused owes the city on account OF
money received from Mrs. White in addi-
ton 10 payment made by him since these
charges were preferred, and in addition to
the disputed sixteen dollars OF July End,
1881, the sum of twenty-five dollars, show
ing that at the time the charges were pre-.
ferred he owed on account OF rent received
from Mrs. White an undoubled balance
of forty-one dollars, being the 81
he paid March 81, 1882, and $25 he still
owes the city, and as your committee be-
lieye he owes in addition S16, received by
him July 1, 1881, making in all the sum oil
S65 due at the time the charges were pre-
ferred; that the accused knew his duty IN
the collection and payment of these rents
is amply demonstrated by the fact that his
payments into the city treasury In the
early portion of his official career were
made by him promptly upon ther receipt OF
the same. OF the S25 paid into the city
treasury after these charges were preferred,
$40 thereof accrued during the months OF
September, October and November, 1881,
and had been held by the accused from
December /, 1881, until March q, 1882, q
period of nearly four months, the other
So thereof. if we concede hat the SIG paid
July 9, 1881, was for rent, must have been
for the rent of December, 1880, and Janua-
nv and February, 1881, INC held by him
for over a year, and the SO hat he still
owes the city he has held in his hands for
much more than a year.
We herewith submit a tabulated state.
ment of rents due and amounts paid and
time of payment into the city treasury.
Your committee find charge one, speclt-
cation four, which relates to the selling of
oats belonging to the city and appropria'
ting the proceeds to his own use, TO have
been clearly proven.
The undisputed evidence shows that the
accused authorized and made the sale OF
oats to Cline by his appointee and subordi-
nate Frank Healey, foreman OF the Atlantic
engine, to the amount Of ten dollars, and
that the same was paid for by said Cline
over a year before the same was paid into
the city treasury, although the city paid
for said oats promptly on receipt OF same.
When the receiver questioned said Hea
lev in regard to him retaining said sum o
ten dollars, and not returning the same
promptly, his reply was that he had squan
dered the same in gambling, still the accus
ed retained said Healey as foreman OF the
Atlantic engine house. This money never
found it's way into the city treasury until
March 18th, 1882, after the charges were
made public by the newspapers. The &C
cused, from his own testimony and filing
Of the receivers receipts of March 18th, for
payment into the city treasury for said
oats, seems to have been totally and entire.
ly deriliCt in his duty us to the sale OF said
oats, though having charge of the same as
the property of the Fire Department, and
authorizing the sale thereof. 1t was his
duty to see that the money realized from
the sale of said oats was paid promptly into
the city treasury and was responsible for
the act of his subordinate. Aside from any
other consideration of this subject, your
committee is of the opinion that the selling
of said oats was an act unauthorized and
reprehensible.
Your committee find charge one, speci-
fication five, which relates to the accused,
VIM. Eccles, having ordered the cutting or
breaking down of the Vigilant reel, to have
been clearly proved by the testimony of
Martin Clark and James st. Meyers, both
foremen of the Vigilant reel.
These witnesses were not in office at the
same time, and, as was discovered, are not
on friendly terms with each other; so there
is no possibility Of any collision in their
testimony. The accused seems to have
been very persistent in his intention to
have the reel destroyed so that council
would have to replace it by a new one. He
first told Martin Clark to break down said
reel, and reiterated the same to his sue
ccSsor, st. Meyers. Although he contra
diets both of these witnesses. Your COM
mittee is reluctant to accept his statement,
conflicting as it does with every important
...l... -, H., AL ~ Han,,n, Nth
his previous testimony, contradiCting re-
Ceipts written by himself.
Your committee find charge one, speci.
fication six, which relates 10 the purchase
of pig zinc from C. G. Hussey K Co., of
Pittsburgh, Pa and concealing same, 10
have been clearly n cOnclusively proven.
The evidence shows that the accused on
or about August Sth 1881, did order two
hundred pounds of pig zinc, which was
duly shipped August 9th, 1881 and received
at the depot of the Z. w. Il Ky. railroad in
this city, on August 18th, 1881, and that
the accused was duly notified Of the fact
about August 18th, 1881; the freight on
same was paid, by whom your committee
did not learn, but not by either the City
Clerk or Receiver, as appears from this ties
timony. This transaction never came to
the knowledge of the proper officers until
about March 4th, 1882, seven months after
the purchase of the zinc, at which time q
letter from said Hussey Il Co. sent through
Nesbitt 4 Bro, of this city to the City
Clerk making inquiries concerning the
payment of the zinc. In the evidence for
the defense of this specification, a matter
cropped out most damaging to the accused,
viz. The introduction in evidence OF a post
al card and a letter sent by him to G.. g.
Hussey 4 Co, making inquiries concerning
the time, by introducing which he intended
TO show that he had used due diligence in
relation to the procuring and payment of
the same, and to deny any intention of
concealment or crookedness on his part,
but his written date on the postal card was
so utterly at variance with the post Office
stamp that your committee is more strong
ly impressed and convinced that he is
guilty as he is charged in the specifications.
His written date on said postal card was
February 9th, 1882, previous TO the agita-
ton of these charges a difference of one
month and two days between the writing
and mailing of said card. The letter bears
date January 18th, 1882, but in the absence
of the envelope your committee are com
nalla1 10 cnpsflar ~ in fba CANA luht 40