The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-04-05

OF p0pUllatl0n; may nave told Rerdel
to get up a petition for increase anC
expedition; had no recollection of the
subject.
Merrick asked for a repetition OF
the instructions given Rerdell, anC
was at loss to see how witness could
fail to remember them.
Witness said from the nature of the
case it was impossible to return a def
mite answer; he was happy to say
that he was not a member of the firm
of John Dorsey & Co.; the company
was Boone; witness deposited $1,000
in either German National or Savings
bank, and authorized Rerdell to draw
against it in the name of John Dorsey
IL Co.; no security had been required
of Rerdell; witness had done every
thing he could to have the service
lawfully increased where it was de-
served.
Rerdell's letters of introduction to
Gov. Routt and Capt. Paddock, of
Colorado, were read by Merrick.
Ingersoll wished to give his judg-
ment upon the handwriting asserting
that an. G. RerdelT' had been written
in a different hand.
The court refused to allow this pro-
ceedure, and waving his hand witness
said, 81 will assume that | wrote
them"
81 don't think l am half as smart as
the Witness" said Ingersoll.
Il don't think so either" said the
court, dryly, (amidst a general laugh,
which Ingersoll bore with good hui
NOR.
The letters represent Rerdell as a
man of irreproachable character.
Merrick inquired if these state
mentS were true.
"In the light of the present events, -
scientifically queried the witness.
ain the light of the events of April,
1879" returned Merrick.
"Oh, l suppose So" answered wit
ness.
Witness described the circumstances
attending the distribution of routes
when he assumed an active interest.
Sub-contracts were given to Miner
by Peck and Dorsey. and all the routes
witness received from Miner were
given 10y sub-contractors to witness.
Assignments of postal drafts were
tllOO W lbllOoO GU
to look after his routes; after that
witness did everything he could law
fully do to have such services in
creased as deserved it, and if he had
neglected anything to that end he did
not know it; witness understood that
the basis for expedition, according to
departmental regulations, was affida-
Wits; witness did not remember that
IL lot of blank affidavitS had
been divided up among the
contractors; presumed that there
was some sort of arrangement by
which nominal contractors when
transferred routes should furnish an
affidavit when necessary.
Merrick-Up to June, 1879, he had
never had much to do with it.
WitnesS-I had no more to do with
it than you had, Mr.. Merrick, nor did
l care three strawS for them (the con-
tractOrs).
He was asked why John Dorsey
had given affidavitS in connection
with one of his (witness0 routes ON
April 6, 1879.
Witness held that he believed the
regulations required an affidavit from
Ullc III Glllo CClOC COllll
Dorsey was contractor.
Two affidavits were shown witness
but he did not recollect whether he
filled them up or not.
To very many of the questions the
witness replies indicated faculty of
memory that while he did not dispute
the facts might be as the questions
suggested.
Orders for an increase of ex-
petition upon witness routes were
taken up and he was asked if he recol-
lected them.
In majority of the cases he recol-
lected the orders, but declared that he
was not in the city at the time; he
had never drawn accent from the gov
eminent on account of these routes;
during two quarters had discounted
drafts through banks which secured
the money.
Merrick inquired if witness did not
recollect that within few months of
his assuming charge Of the business
receipts from the routes had been in
creased by $104 1858 persannum.
His counsel objected to the ques-
ton.
The court said that the fact could
neither be proved or disproved by wit
ness recollection.
Merrick thought it. was hardly
probable that man could have no
recollection of such a large increase
in his income.
Witness said he remembered the in
creased receipts generally, but not
the specific sums. 1t was a mistake
to suppose that the profits were large.
The Mineral Park and Piochee route
showed an apparent profit of $4,000
per annum, but it had been held for a
small sum because of actual loss from
heavy fines and reductions, and $780,
900 on that route remained unpaid.
Merrick wished to know if witness
meant to say the contractors paid
fines for which the sub-contractors
were responsible.
Witness answered that they did in
many cases; witness only drew pay
Tor service during two quarters and
Bosler drew pay for the quarters
ending December 81, 1879 and there
after; among the routes which had
not paid, witness cited the Toquer-
vile and Adairville routes in which
Rer1ell had an interest and was paid
$1,000 per annum; lin his management of
this route Rerdell stole $500 from
BOsler and himself.
Witness was interrupted by the
prosecution while describing the
method by which Rerdell committed
this robbery, and the count ruled that
the matter was not pertinent.
Bliss undertook to say that the
statement was not true.
IDgersoll offered to prove that il
was true.
Witness said he ought to know
something about it, as he. had paiC
the money himself.
The court refused to permit the
answer.
Witness said Bosler went into the
business to advance the money; WheI
witness left this city in June, 1879, ht
had no intention of returning; sup
posed he had informed Bosler as tt
the nature of the business, but had nc
recollection of having a statement
made for that purpose, or of having
directed Rerdell to show the books
to Bosler; he was to advance
the money and receive Interest
for it; he was to receive thirt
interest as a bonus; witness would
not have referred Bosler to such ;
man as Rerdell, because Bosler was il
the habit of thoroughly examining
into a matter when he advanced
money; witness had settled with Bos
Ter Just before the beginning of thii
trial, and an account book had beer
given to witness.
The court then adjourned.