Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-05-14
THE REYNOLDS CASE.
RIFT LITTLE EVIDENCE TAKEN
YESTERDAY.
Attempt to Interpose the Statute
of Limitation as to Admis-
sibiIity of Evidence.

The hearing of the Reynolds case was
resumed in Department One of the Supe-
rior Court, before Judge Sullivan, at 10 A.
NJ yesterday. The Court after listening to
arguments on both sides upon the admissi-
bility of the February statement, which
included the fees collected in the Office of
the Secretary of State in the month OF
January, 1880, overruled the objection, and
the defense noted an exception.
j. O'Connor, who was on the witness
stand, produced several other monthly
statements of the fees collected, and upon
comparing them with the cash and fee
book, they corresponded as TO amounts.
The statements were in the handwriting of
Reynolds.
General Carey said he proposed 10 show
by the witness that the changing of the
word January to February" in the
March settlement, was done in the office OF
the State Controller to correct an error
made by the defendant Reynolds. The
Controllers books would show that
SUCH A STATEMENT HAD BEEN MADE,
And the amount and date were corrobo-
rated also by the fee and cash books of the
Secretary of States office. In order To es-
tablish this fact he would further examine
Mr.. O'Connor.
Mr.. johnson said he had listened pa
tiently to the lengthy statements made by
the learned counsel for the prosecution, as
to what he expected to prove. He was not
willing that this case should drag its way
through the Courts as did that of ID. NJ.
| Burns. and to that end he should object
| TO the introduction of any evidence that
| did not have direct bearing upon the case
at issue. The defendant was charged with
| the embezzlement of $3.50 on 4 certain
date. and counsel for the prosecution must
confine themselves to that, and that alone
| He was opposed to Mr. O'COnnor being ex-
amined at length upon questions he per-
sonally has not the slightest knowledge of
Mr.. O'Connor, at the time this transaction
is alleged TO have taken place, was not an
attache of the Controllers office, not res
ident of this city and not acquainted with
any of the
PARTIES To THE TRANSACTION.
| He knows nothing about the books and
papers of the Controllers office except what
| he has learned from the papers on file.
The Court overruled the objection, as he
said temporarily, and said further evidence
would be heard as to its admissibility.
| Mr.. O'Connor was then asked to read the
report of the fees collected in the Secretary
of States Office in January, 1889. The re-
port was signed I'D. NJ. Burns, Secretary
of State, by Thomas H. Reynolds, Deputy"
and showed the collections to have amount
ed to S504 80, which agreed with the fee
and cash-bool;s. Witness also produced,the
receipt of the State Treasurer for the same
month, showing that the same amount had
been paid into the treasury. Witness
stated that he had been employed
for several years in the capacity of
a clerk and bookkeeper. Since he
had been employed in the Controllers
he had become quite familiar with the
handwriting of those who were in the of
flee during the preceding term. He said he
was not acquainted with w. Il. Davies, but
was acquainted with his handwriting, al
though he (witnessJ had never seen him
write.
Witness was then asked to identify some
of Mr. Davies writing and compare it with
the word February written in the re-
port referred 10.
Mr. Johnson objected to witness doing SC
until he had been examined Us to his quai-
itications rs