Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-04-30
TRIAL OF A. d. JANUARY.
The Evidence All In-The Case to be Ar
rued To-Day.

| Inc taking OF the teSuiHoilS III 1i0 Sdse
of Arthur D. January, charged with en-
bezzlement, was resumed in Department
One of the Superior Court, before Judge
Van Fleet, at 10 A. NJ. yesterday.
The first witness was Governor George
Stoneman. He said he was Governor of
California during the year 1884, and as
such officer, was ex officio member ofand
| Chairman of the State Board Of Examiners.
He said it came to his knowledge in
November. 1884, that there We're some
| irregularities in the office of State Treas
urer. On the. 18th day of November the
| Board of Examiners counted the State 5
money in the vaults and found it to be all
right He then asked the Deputy Treas
urer if there was any other money IN the
vaults belonging to other parties: de
| replied that there was some belonging TO
! County Treasurers, which had been
placed there on special deposit. Witness
| asked if there was any objection to allowing
the examiners to count that also: lie
at first demurred, but finally
gave his consent They were shown
one bag, which contained about $4,000.
An investigation of the stubs i'll the
receipt books showed a very large def
cheney. This sack was by itself on the
left-hand side as YOU enter the vault. This
was all the money that was found in the
vault, except that belonging 10 the State.
This was i'll the presence OF the State
Treasurer, January, Secretary OF State
Thompson, Controller Dunn and others.
After the count was completed and the de-
ficiencv discovered, witness asked the de-
PENDANT if he had any explanation to make.
1,r loft INF ! happl1On took ~
table and gave
4 HISTORY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT.
1t was long story. He narrated how he
had from time to time taken money from
those special deposits, and detailed how he
had lost it on horse races and at the gam
ing table II was a lengthy and well-con-
nected story.
On cross-examination, the witness said
he made a distinction between the State
Treasury and the State vault. The defend
ant claimed that the special deposits were
under his control.
Secretary of State Thomas L. Thompson
was next sworn, and corroborated the
statement made by the preceding witness.
He was a member of the Board of Exam
iners They found by examination on the
18th of November, 1884, that the States
money was all right, but that instead of
there being some $4,000 in the special
deposits, there was only some Sf4 600.
When the Governor asked about the miss
ing coin, the Deputy Treasurer admitted
that he had taken money at various times
whenever he wanted it. Witness said he
did not examine the stubs personally, but
the computation was made in his presence. |
William \. January, recalled-He said
in keeping these special deposits the dep |
uty was simply doing so as an accommOda- |
ton TO the County Treasures He acted |
for the State Treasurer in these transac- |
tons, from the fact that he was deputy, and |
in that capacity was authorized to sign the !
Treasurer name.
On crosse examination he said that he |
assumed the duties of the office OF State |
Treasurer on the 18th day of January, |
1888, and retired from that office December |
a. 1881. His son assumed the duties of |
deputy the 18th day of January, 1855, and |
served in that capacity until the 18th of |
1884. Witness, as Treasurer,
was allowed 4 deputy, a bookkeeper and |
two watchmen. lie never gave his deputy
any instructions about these special depos-
its. Witness had no interest in them, no
lien upon them, and received no compen-
sation for taking care of them. They were
always kept in the vault separate from the
FUNDS BELONGING To THE STATE.
Witness did not consider that it would
have been a breach of trust if the deputy
had refused to receive such deposits, as he
received no compensation whatever for it.
His salary was so much per annum as
Deputy State Treasurer, and this was not a
duty imposed by law.
In answer to a question by Mr., Edgerton,
witness SAID the Treasurer is only author
lied by law TO receive money upon state
ment from the Controller. stating 10 what
funds it belongs
Witness, continuing, said he presumed
his son was instructed in the routine work
ov his predecessor in Office, Frank John
son, who was deputy under State Treasurer
John We'll. Witness said he was very often
absent from the Office, when his duties
were performed by his son.
Mr.. Buckley-Who had charge of the
vault?
Witness-MyseIf my deputy, and fire.
quently the Waterman.
Mr.. Curtis-Gou don't seem TO under
stand Mr. Buckley. He desires to know
who was the boss key-bearer.
Winess-Weu, presume | was.
w w Coons, Under Sheriff, was next
put upon the stand. to identify a couple of
pages of legal cap paper in the handwriting
of the defendant. He said that in January
last the defendant was taken into the Sher-
ifs Office. where he assisted in making out
the delinquent tax list which was furnished
to the RECORD [ MON for publication. The |
pages shown him were Of that copy, and he
believed it to he WA. January's hand
writing.
Mr.. Curtis-Well, l do think it pretty
hard to have the Sheritf7s Office impose
clerical work upon a prisoner, and after
wards come into Court and show their
. = / L. a 1
the result of his labor before this jury, and
trying to send the young man to the State
Prison.
Mr.. Buckley-This is matter not sug-
gested by the Sheriff-s office. am person
ally responsible for this evidence.
Frank Miller. Cashier of the National
Bank of D. Q. Mills, an expert in chirog-
raphy. testified that the stubs in the re-
ceipt book and the manuscript referred to
were apparently written by the same per-
son.
Counsel for defense admitted that the re-
ceipts and stubs We're in the handwriting
Of the defendant.
The receipts were signed William A
january. State Treasurer by A D. Janu-
ary, Deputy The receipts and stubs were
then placed in evidence.
The next witness was the representative
Of the REcoRD-U MON, who interviewed the
defendant at the station-housc the night
after his arrest, full and detailed state
ment Of which was published III this paper
on the morning of November II, 1885. In
that statement the defendant admitted tax
ing the money. told how it was done, and
what became of it.
His statement to the reporter was very
similar to that made to the Governor, and
which the latter related in his testimony.
At this point District Attorney Buckley
said the prosecution closed their case.
Counsel for defense asked a few moments
after which Mr.. Edgerton in
formed the Court that the defense also
rested.
Mr. Buckley said he was somewhat sur
nrised at the action of counsel for the de-
ense. and presumed they We're going TO re-
" upon some technicality as to ownership.
He was not prepared for such an abrupt
termination Of the taking of evidence, and
would have to ask the Court
'or little time TO prepare instructions 1t
vas a case of great Importance, and he did
lot wish to give instructions that might
Drove erroneous. He said the Court and
counsel for defense were aware of the fact
hat he had been laboring hard with the
lark murder trial, that was in progress
across the hall, and it should not be a sur
Prise to any one that he should not be pre-
pared promptly to proceed. If he was
,1lr,voi a oo,,rlo of hours he wOuld pre- |