Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-02-04
THE NAVAL VOUCHER TRIALS.
Testimony in the Dempsey Case To-day.


Testimony in the Dempsey Case To-day.
When the trial OF VIVA H. Dempsey and E. C..
kfrkwood, charged with presenting false claims
| against the bureau Of medicine and surgery Navy
| department., WAS resumed this morning, the ex-
animation OF Mr.. benjamin White, clerk In the
| bureau OF medicise and surgery, witness for the
| government, yesterday, after THE STARS report
closed, was continued. He produced the day book
| of the bureau, Kept by kirkwood He turned to
the date OF January 80. 1SS2 the date of the first
alleged fraudulent bill, and said the entries from
| that date until February were in Kirkwoods
handwriting. He said that there was no bill or
item entered on that date the few days imme-
diatels following in favor OF Dempsey. He turned
also To other dates named In the other alleged
| false bills On January 6, 1888, the date or a
voucher for 81 Gao % he found two items Of Si0350
and 81. Is for stationery entered in favor of Mr.
Dempsey. He did not find an entry about Septem-
Der 1888. the date OF the Agnew voucher, in favor
OF either Agnew or Dempsey. About the dates of
entries The entries about these dates were all In
kirkwoods handwriting. The witness said that
during 1882 ard 1883 Mr.. Dempsey used to to
the bureau occasionally. lie used TO come into
witness room sometimes, and sometimes into Car
rigan'S and kirkwood'S. He was contractor, and
there was nothing unusual in his coming there.
On croS5-examinatlon the witness explained how
supplies were purchased Goods for immediate use
In small amounts were purchased often from mer-
chants. He said he had himself been sent to Mr..
DempSeys once or twice to get articles, but they
were articles purchased at schedule prices under
BIZ. Dempsey Is contract.
TESTIMONY OF MEDICAL NAVAL OFFICERS
DE- Van Reypen, q. s. N, assistant in the bureau
OF medicine and surgery, was the next witness
called He testified that he had examined all the
tripiicate vouchers on file in the bureau for the
years 1852 and 1888. He testified that there
tfipieate vouchers. bills entries IN the day book
corresponding with the alleged fraudulent vouch-
ers OF January 30, 1884, September 2, 1882, Septem-
Der Isl and 4th, 1883, and october 90 1889. IN re-
spect OF the voucher OF January 1881 for 81
sal IA Pr11
Tor portion OF the articles mentioned in the bill
On cross examinaton the witness said he had ex-
to the first quarter of 1884 The witness was asked
In how many cases he had found that the vouchers
We're made out for the different articles from those
mentioned In the bill Objection was made that
this was not proper cross examination. and the wit
ness was not allowed 10 answer the question. He
said he had made his examination by direction OF
the Secretary OF the Navy: the examination was
made in consequence Of an investigation which
affairs Of the bureau.
DR.. Samuel F. Coues, medical director q. g. n,
who was In charge or the Naval Laboratory, at
fed that he had not received from Mr. Dempsey
the goods mentioned in the vouchers in question.
On cross examination he said he had received
stationery from house Ia New York, which, as he
understood 1t, represented Mr.. Dempsey He said
ne never ordered goods from MIR. Dempsey dt
reetly, as he had no authority to do so. He might
nave written notes to Mr. Dempsey when the lat
ter was filling acquisitions A letter written by
the witness TO Mr.. Dempsey by DR.. Coues, Feb
ruary =, 1852, was identified by the Witness but not
read
Medical Director Delevan Bloodgood who sue
ceeoetl Dr. Cones in Charge OF the laboratory at
BROOKLYN In April. 1883, testified that he had never
heard OF j. r Agnew, whose name appeared in the
voucher OF September /, 1881 or OF the autOpSicaI
Iaoles Oh Invalid bedSteads, mentioned in the
voucher. He had never received any OF the goods
described In the vouchers from Mr.. Dempsey or
tfoin j. X. Agnew.
THE AGNEw VOUCHERS
MI John Cook, OF the fourth auditors Office was
1n1 IYa p,
ers tn favor of j. R. Agnew filed with the accounts
OF the navy pay Office. These vouchers were dated
In 1850 and 1881 Objection was made to these pa
pers, as they mot refer to the transactions COM
plained OIL He said the government in opening
the case had made no mention of these papers;
that the witness had, when frst On the stand yes
terday, not produced the papers, and now the
defense was required TO meet them on the spur of
the moment, without any notice whatever.
s.a me Judge said that the evidence, as he under
Other transactions employed the name of Aynev
and Agnew was a fiction.
The district attorney said that he had other rea-
sons also for Offering the evidence. which he did
not thfnE he could state with propriety IN the
presence OF the Jury.
reservation that II the papers were not hereafter
connected with the issues Of the case they should
be ruled out
Mr. Wilson raised the point that In the case of
one OF the vouchers apparently one OF the papers
naa oaen detached, as IL had pinhoes in the corner
lie thought all the papers should be brought in
The witness said the papers were exactly In the
form in which they had passed through the oInce
DIR. WALES RECALLED.
DIR. Philip s. Wales was then recalled, and test1-
fed that he had never heard Of j. K Agnew The
signature on these five Agnew vouchers looked
like his, but II he signed them he did not do SO
knowingly. He knew of no ones having done bust
ness with the bureau under the name Of Agpew
Dempsey had never done business with the bu-
reau under any other name than his own. He said
he had not, In 1880 1884, bought any be1steads of
AgneW or Dempsey. lie had never heard OF Ap-
patent befiStead.
The witness was asked by Mr.. Worthinton II he
would not remember 1t If he had bought $4,000
worth or AgneW'S patent bedSteadS during his term
OF Office. He said he would; he had bought 80 or
100 bedSteads during his time
THE RETAINED AGNEw VOUCHERS
Francis V. Walker, chief clerk of the navy pay
of1ice, was called and produced his retained
vouchers corresponding with four OF the five Agnew
vouchers produced by Mi. Cook. The other re-
taned voucher was sent to the auditors office the
witness thought, with an itemized bill after the
account had been suspended. He identified Mr.
DenpSey'S signature On the vouchers In regard
to the first voucher he said 1t was brought to the
who Carrigan said was Mr.. AgneSy. CarrIgan said
AgneW wanted TO get his money. Witness said
they did not have his money that day. Carrfgan
ASKED Il the money could not be paid, when ready
to Dempsey. Witness said that it could be so paid
II II were endorsed to Mr. Dempsey. They then
took the papers and went to a table where Witness
supposed the endorsement to Mr.. DEMPSEY was
made: The claim was paid to Mr.. Dempsey some
days later. The witness heard Mr.. Dempsey say
NJ
AgneW. Mr.. Agnew, 1t was represented, wanted
TO go TO New York that night. The witness SAID
That the other vouchers were presented by Mr.
Dempsey, Who received the pay for them. He
Identified Mr. DempSey's signatures on the
checks by which the payments were made.
Mr. W0rthington then offered the ffve ApneW
vouchers and cheeks In evidence. The first dated
June II. 1880, was for bed5teadS, blankets &C. for
$3,456.5s the second, dated August 3, $780, for SINH
lar goods, was for - $685. so; the third dated Oc-
tober 23, 1880. for bedSteadS, bedding, sheeting
hospital furniture, &c, for s. 375 30 the fourth
dated January 49, 1881. for similar goods, was for
81 446; and the fifth dated April H. 1884, for goods
OF like character, g, 1870.
The witness said he had no very distinct recol-
lection OF the person introduced to him as AgneW:
he did not believe he would recognize the person II
he saw him again. He did not know of any bills
ever having been paid in the name Of j. X. Agnew
except those presented by Mr.. Dempsey. The wit
ness said there was navy pay Office Ia New York,
where such bills could be paid.
recess was then taken
AFTER THE RECESS.
DR.. Wales was recalled and shown two OF the
AgneW vouchers, which bore what purported to be
his certificate beneath that Of Carrlgans certin-
cate: lie said he never signed those certificates Or
any certhcates In that way, that would be irreg
ular. He SAID ne did not believe what purported
TO be his signatures were genuine
In response to query by the court, the witness
said 1t has been shown that Mr.. Carrigan could im
tate his signature so well as to deceive others. H0