Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-28

omissions. There may have been, as
anybody might make mistakes.
Mr. Hart submitted letter to witness,
who identified it as his handwriting.
He was asked to read that part of it re-
ferring to the alleged errors, TO which Mr..
Johnson objected. If reaG al all, it should
be read i'll full
Witness said il was a private letter, and
he did not care tc have il all read.
The letter was read by Mr.. Jones, Of the
committee, who decided that only por-
ton of it was properly admissible.
Witness then read a portion of the letter,
admitting that there were some errors i'll
the report of the Plummer case.
Witness was then shown his report to
Mccarthy, and asked to state whether or
not there were any entries thereon i'll Nc
Carthy's handwriting.
The report was dated August, 1884, and
Mr. Johnson objected TO it, because the
supplemental report went up only to Jan
uarv, 1884.
Witness admitted that the report did
contain certain entries made by Mccarthy
Did not remember whether these entries
were mentioned in the supplemental re-
port
In response to question by Mr.. John
son, witness said the letter from Mccarthy
was given to him in San Francisco at his
own request therefor. He asked fOrit for
his own protection. Possibly he had told
Mccarthy that he wanted it for the purpose
of meeting any attacks that might be made
| against his integrity, but could not remem-
Der.
Mr. Johnson wished 10 know if McCar-
thy had made any further effort to find the
San Francisco desk blotter.
Mccarthy replied that he had not
Mr. Hart wished TO know if W s I.eake
had found the memorandum kept by him
on telegram, and Leake replied he had
not.
Nj J. O'Reilly clerk in the Controllers
! office was examined by the prosecution in
reference to the missing desk -blotter Wit
ness said he had seen the desk-blotter dur
ing the Controllers examination Had
noticed entries on it to this effect " Settled
to this date" signed j. w Mccarthy.
Heard a conversation between Mccarthy
and Leake during the investigation. Leake
asked Mccarthy if he (Leakel had paid
over TO him all moneys received by Leake,
and Mccarthy said he had.
Cross examined The Governor asked
Mr. Mccarthy great many questions.
There was considerable discussion about
perquisites. In one case Mccarthy said he
did not consider that the fee belonged to
troller remarked that if it did not it should
be returned to the party that paid it. Was
present as one of the experts Leake as
sisted o 'Connor and witness in going over
the books. He assisted materially in
the matter Do not remember of
any questions having been asked
Lealle. he did moi present any
blank telegram to the Controller, on the
back of which were certain entries At
that time he did not tell witness that the
item of 50 %, and another of S15, were on
that telegraph blank Witness examined
the books Of the Sacramento office three
times, and had given Leake certificate
that his accounts were correct. Leake had
told witness that he had in his possession
memorandum of items that were not on
the records Lcabe had not told witness
that he intended to use those items against
Mccarthy. Never heard Lcake say any
thing about getting cent commission on
printed transcripts.
ID. Mckay was examined by Mr.. John
son, He remembered that one day last
year, while in en- route to San Francisco,
he overheard 4 conversation between Nc
Carthy andanotler person about his diff
Guilty. The latter stated that if there was a
i'll Sacramento, it was Sam
Leake. lie was asked if ne could not get
heake out. he said he could, but not right
away.
Felix Tracy, agent for Wells, Fargo &
Co. was next called by the defense. He
produced the delivery book for 1883 1t
contained under date Of November %, 1858,
an entry of 81 So
There was some dispute as to the sigma
ture, which W S. Leakc admitted to be his.
Another entry was signed g Jobson."
Leake said he could not say whether or
not Jobson (who was sometimes about the
office received the money and handed it to
him
Senator J. D. Spencer, Of stanislaus, pro
prietor OF the Stanislaus NeWs, was exam
med for the prosecution. Witness stated
that in 1858 his paper was sent to j. w
Mccarthy, Clerk Of the Supreme Court
Thought he had paid for it. One time, in
San Francisco, ran short OF money and
borrowed sl5 of Mccarthy, and told him
he would give him credit for it en- account.
If he had not done SO he should have SO
credited Mccarthy.
The prosecution called w. S. Loake.
Witness said that since his former exam
ination he had inquired into the matter of
the McFadden case. He thought it was III
May 1884 the Court being in session here
One Armstrong wanted copy Of q record
made, and witness went after young man
named Hall, engaged on special work in
the Controllers Office, but he could not
do ii in time. Witness then got
his wife to copy it at night. 1t
was not a certified copy, according to wit
ness recollection. The money, 50 10, was
sent to witness and by him paid over to the
party who did the writing. II did not come
addressed TO the Clerk Of the office. There
was no charge made for the seal-only for
the writing.
Mr.. Hart cross-examined witness, wish
ing to know what he was doing that kept
him so busy that he could not do the work
and have the State get the fee.
Witness said the Court was either in ses-
sion, or Just had been, and he was too busy
to make the copy. He could not remember |
whether Mccarthy and another deputy
were here at that time. Gould not remem- |
Der whether he mentioned the matter TO !
his chief or Deputy Williams.
MIR Johnson objected to the line of ex-
animation on the ground that the copy re-
ferred to was not j State document, but q |
plain copy which Armstrong desired for his !
use as an attorney.
Witness explained further that he had |
tried to get the young man Hall 10 do the |
work for Armstrong. and when he found |
he could not he got his wife to do it. Did |
not care for the job himself, bat if he could |
have done it in office hours would have en-
tered it on the records.
Witness was further questioned in regard I
to the entry on Wells, Fargo & Co.'S de- |
livery book, and the receipt thereon. He
believed it was his own signature. The |
boy, Jobson, whose name E signed to the !