Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-26
Clerk Of Supreme Cour

Clerk OF supreme Court.
Mccarthy had testified on Tuesday that
he made up reports of the Los Angeles Of
flee from rough memoranda furnished by
Gaffcy
w. 5. Leakc was then placed upon the
stand, and asked about a certain entry in
the cash book as to whether It was in his
handwriting or that of Mr. Williams. 1t
was an entry where fee of ST 80 had been
collected 81 entered in the cash book and
80 cents pockcted as IJerquisites His an
swer was to the best of his know ledge and
belief the entry was in Williams writing.
He was positive the entry was not in his
handwriting and he had no recollection
Of receiving the money from Wells, Fargo
K Co.
lie was asked if he did not in MAY, 1881.
make copy of q bill of exceptions for
Eagan & Armstrong, in the case of the
People vs.. Mcl'adden, which he sent to
them c. O. D., with bin of 80 -. His
answer was he did not remember.
General Hart asked ii he did not receive
the - 10 ana not report the cash to he
Office at all.
He answered that he did not
He was asked if he did not receive a
commission from Lewis < Johnston, print
erS, on all copy furnished them.
He replied that it was customary among
printers to give the clerks percentage.
General Hart claimed that it was in viO-
latiOn of law to charge the attorneys more
than the amount received by the printers.
Mr. Johnson said if there was any such
law he would like to have it pointed out.
The committee objected to this line of
examination, holding that Mr. Leake was
private citizen and not on trial
Mr.. Leake admitted that all percentages
received from the printers were his own
All printers charged Il dollar page. and he
collected that amount. He said he went
before the Grand Jury of San Francisco,
being subpenaed in the Mccarthy exam
nation, lie denied having gone before
the Grand Jury of Sacramento county, or
having written to the foreman Of the Grand
Jury.
He was asked how long he had been
keeping record of McCarthy's conduct
belurc he reported it to Deputy Con-
trulier.
lie answered that he did not know ex-
actly how long, but it dated back to the
first time he saw transactions that looked
crooked. He had kept memorandum of
them.
He was asked why he did not specifically
state what those amounts were to the Con-
troller when he was making an examina-
ton at his Leake's) instigation.
He replied that he had not shown the
memorandum to any one. His brother
may have seen it.
" How was Mccarthy to know of these
perquisites when you made no entry of
them ?''
Mccarthy certainly knew what the per-
quisites were when l handed him the cash
/ remember the cases distinctly He said
he did not remember of rcceipting to
Wells, Fargo Il Co. on the 26th day of May,
1884, for 80 10 from Eagan & Armstrong
for copy OF bill of exception in the case
of the People vs. McFadden.
Mr.. Hart asked number of questions re-
garding Wells, Fargo Il Co.'S settlements,
which were objected TO by Mr.. Johnson,
and the objection sustained by the commit
tee. Mr.. Hart said he would not except, as
from this committee there was no appeal
Mr. Leake said al the entries were made
in accordance with instructions from Nc
Carthy He had been tod to enter a certain
amount for certain charges, and retain a
certain amount as perquisites, which went
to Mccarthy. He was not aware for a long
time that Mccarthy was not legally entitled
to the so-cailed perqi isites He first be-
came acquainted with Mr.. Mccarthy in
July, 1888 He did not know exactly at
what date he became convinced that Nc
Carthy was rascal.
Johnson objected to the farther investi-
CATION in that direction. The counsel for
defense, he claimed, had gone over the