Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-04-29
Trial of a. ID. January.

Yesterday morning, in Department oiie
of the Superior Court, the trial OF Arthur
D. January for ENLIGHTENMENT was entered
upon before Judge Van Fleet. There are
five indictments against him, specifying
that while in the Office of the State Treas
urer he embezzled the sum OF S39,342 20 Oh
funds that had been left on special deposit
to the credit OF certain County treasures.
The Indictment upon which the present
trial is based is general one, ana c1arge y
that Arthur D. January, whilst clefk'
an agent and servant III the
employ of the State Treasurer, en-
bezzled The amount of the iunds -, OF
certain individuals above referred to- ne
other four indictments specify particularly
to whom the several amounts belonged
The Jury impaneled to try the cause IS as
follows r. T. Butler. T. L. Davis, W. =, a
Caswell, p Flaherty, Peter Robinson w.
II. Hobby, J. A. Huston. Charles Barnes,
Ben. Cohen, John Ryan, W. Lindsay W N.
Parks. The attorneys for the defense are
Henry Edgerton, n Greene Curtis and
Judge j. H. McKune for the prosecution,
District Attorney Henry l.. Buckley, as
sisted by General John T. Carey.
William A. January, the trst witness,
testified that he was State Treasurer Tor
nearly two years and that during portlon
OF that time Arthur ID. January was his
deputy. acted officially in that capacity
and assumed the duties Of the Office during
witness absence.
The District Attorney asked: " Did the
defendant receive money on special deposit
from County Treasures While acting as
Deputy Treasurer p
This was objected to by counsel for the
defense on the ground that it was irrelev-
ant, lnasmuch as the Indictment upon
which defendant was being tried did not
claim that he was deputy in the Office.
The objection was sustained, and after
much legal sparring the District Attorney
succeeded in having the witness testify to
the fact that the stubs in the receipt book
wherein receipts had been made out to the
various depositors were he thought, in the
handwriting of the defendant, but he would
not swear to it. He could not remember
any special sums so left or who made the
deposits
The District Attorney placed the receipt
books of the State Treasurer in evidence.
Witness said he presumed the books were
right He saw some entries in his own
hand writing, but he had no recollection of
the transactions.
The District Attorney desired the witness
to take the receipt books, select all the
stubs that were in defendants handwriting,
and state what instruction be had given his
deputy or clerk regarding the receiving of
special deposits.
This was objected to on the ground that
there was no law authorizing the Treasurer
to receive special deposits, that the receipts
were a personal matter, and that the ques
ton was irrelevant.
The Court held that the receipt books
were not public but a private record. The
foundation for the question had not been
laid. and consequently was irrelevant. He
added, You must prove that certain
amounts were paid in to the State Treas
ury''
To the question, Did the defendant re-
ceive money on special deposit? the witness
replied: He did. The custom was to
give a receipt and keep memorandum on
the stub He said the book-keeper, the
deputy and himself were the only ones who
wrote in the receipt book.
The District Attorney offered stubs Nos.
4, II, 16, II, Is, 20, p. %, 81, 26 q, % and
4l6, which witness recognized as the hand
writing of the defendant, in evidence.
Witness then described how the money
for special deposits was received, placed in
a sack by itself and was not placed among
the State cash until paid into the Treasury.
The Court AT P. NJ adjourned to 10 \. VI.
to-day