Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-05-26
-----
The Naval Voucher Cases.

TRIAL OF MR. JOHN W. DREW,
The second trial of Mr.. John w. Drew on In
dctments charging him with presenting fraud
uent claims upon the bureau OF medicine and
surgery was resumed In the Criminal Court this
morning The prosecution recalled DR. Blood
good, who was cross-eXamined and said that
purchases could be made 10y the bureau and he
would know nothing about ii; was not ac-
quanted with the practice of the bureau;
whether the articles were furnished the bureau
he had no knowledge.
DR. 3 7. Coues testified that ne preceded nr
Bloodgood at the Brooklyn laboratory from
May, 1850, 10 March, 1883. and was now sta
toned in Philadelphia: that the goods charged
We're not received during his administration.
Witness found the name of Mr. Drew as having
furnished goods there in April, 1881, but his
name does not appear again on the book. on
croSs-eXamination witness said he knew that
at stations in eases of emergency medical OIL
GERS sometimes purchased medicines. The chief
of the bureau had supervision of the laboratory
us well as the stations, and he could have made
purchases without the knowledge of witness.
Mr.: Peter "A; joyce; s,orskeePer at The naval
year no goods were received from Drew.
DR.. WALES WITNESS.
DR. Phillip :. Wales tex-surgeon generan tes-
titled that with the supplying Of medicines &c.
DIR. Hudson. Carrigan and Kirkwood had to do.
the other clerks being engaged on pension work
Witness said that Drew had but one contract i'm
1852, which lac filled, and as to the bills in
question. witness never purchased the goods
nor authorized the bills. He could not tell
were genuine or not. He did not always see
the duplicate or triplicate vouchers. which
were folded under the original. foi between
$3.50 and O'Clock he often had two hundred
papers TO sign. One voucher was kept at the
bureau and the other two given To the payee, who
presented them to the paymaster. and he on
the payment would send one voucher 10 the
fourth auditor and retain one. Ii the vouchers
were not entered on the books of the bureau the
discrepancy could not be aScertained until the
comparison was made with the fourth auditor
books
Cro>s-examined-Saw Mr. Drew I'm bis office
on the occasion OF awarding a contract To him:
not say that his signature was not genuine
Never bought articles under one appropriation
and had Vouchers made out under another
Witness had no knowledge OF a picture of HIM
self being paid for Oh a voucher for postage
stamps.
DIR. Adrian Hudson gave testimony as TO the
routine work OF the bureau.
Marsh Ii. Clark. the messenger of the bureau
testified that he never received medicines there
from Mr.. Drew.
Mr. Benjamin White testified that he is a
clerk in the bureau and he Identified the
vouchers in the handwriting of kirkwood,
but could not say in whose handwriting was
the bill attached. The dealers sent their bills
to the bureau and kEkwoOd would prepare
the vouchers, filing the bills i'm the Office
Brooks shaw testified that no articles were
received from Drew that he knew OF at the
bureau.
DIR. w. X. Van Reypen, assistant at the
bureau, testified that he had examined the
records from 1850 to 1854, and found no tripli-
ing To them, nor is there any record Of them in
the books.
At this point the trial was adjourned until to-
morrow.