Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-10-29
THE REYNOLDS CASE.
1T BIDS FAIR TO COME TO A SUD
DEN TERMINATION.
Certain Testimony-The Defense
Asks For q Dismissal.

iOI bLIN ANNOiNAo
of the Secretary of States Office, was re-
sumed in Department One of the Superior
Court yesterday morning, Judge Murphy
presiding. The first witness called was J.
]. O'Connor, bookkeeper in the Controllers
office. Witness had but little opportunity
during the morning session to testify, the
time being mostly consumed by arguments
touching the admissibility of the Secretary
of States monthly reports of fees as evil
dence. The prosecution endeavored to
show by these reports discrepancies be-
tween the actual and reported receipts that
would tend to sustain the charge against
the defendant. Long arguments ensued
also upon the question as to the right of
the prosecution to prove other acts of falsi-
fication of records, and the Court finally de-
cided that any such acts committed during
the month of February, 1882. might be
brought out for the purpose of showing the
intent of the accused.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On the Resembling of the Court the
prosecution placed S. II. Nourse on the
stand Witness said he was book-keeper
for the firm of \. T. Dewey & Co., San
Francisco. He was shown a letter, which
he identified as one having been written by
him to the Secretary of State in February,
1882, requesting certified copies of certain
documents. The letter inclosed certified
check, which had been duly collected and
returned
Witness was asked what fees were
charged his firm for such services at that
time. This was objected to, on the ground
that the fees of the Secretary of States
Office were fixed by law and published.
The objection was sustained.
Witness could not say that he had any
correspondence with the Secretary of State
relative to the fee for the filing above al
luded to (the defense Directing thereto).
The prosecution here offered in evidence
letter relating to other transactions to
which the defense objected. The Court
held that the particulars of transactions
outside of the one connected with the case
before the Court would not be admissible.
A check relating to one of these outside
transactions was offered, and also disal-
lowed.
J. J. O'Connor was next called to resume
his testimony. He testified that the fee
book of the Secretary Of State referring to
q printed copy Of a report by the State Con
troller) showed the receipt of a certain fee
IA 1 va A'tAA LD'-i t4Il iDillOI Ol winch
sum was entered on the cash book. Other
items of a similar character were referred
to IN the fee book, which witness said did
not appear on the cash book
MUST KEEP WITHIN BOUNDS.
When it came to the transactions of the
month of March, 1882 (after the date of the
commission of the alleged offense), the
defense objected to the introduction of such
testimony, and the Court sustained the OBJ
lection. The prosecution then directed the
attention of witness to the transactions of
the preceding month, January The wit
ness read from the Controllers statement
TO the effect that in a number of instances
certain sums had been received for filing
articles of incorporation, in some cases
only portions thereof appearing on the fee
and cash-books, and in other instances
never at all on the cash-book.
The Court sustained an objection, raised
by the defense. to a question by General
Carey as to the total amount of the defai-
cation for February, 1882, on the ground
that the books and records would be the
most competent testimony.
SOME TESTIMONY STRICKEN OUT.
Mr., O'Connor was asked by Mr.. Jones on
cross-examination, if he had any personal
knowledge of any alleged payments made
to the Secretary of State. in 1882, and wit
ness admitted that he had not-that his ties.
mony was based upon records of the office,
correspondence, etc. Mr.. Jones then moved
to have all that portion of the testimony of
witness, relating to payments alleged to
have been made to the Secretary of State.
stricken out, and the motion was granted.
The prosecution next recalled Mr..
Nourse and General Carey questioned him
regarding the details of certain transactions
between Dewey d Co. and Reynolds, as
Deputy Secretary of State-not embraced
in the alleged act of Justification of records
on which the indictment was based.
Defense objected on the ground that the
prosecution was going beyond the rule. and
endeavoring to try the defendant on yari-
Gus charges.
The Court said that it would be compe-
tent only for the prosecution to try the de-
PENDANT on the charge alleged in the indict-
ment; that, while in theory the defendant
was being tried on a specific charge, the
admission Of the testimony asked by the
prosecution would be in effect trying him
on several charges.
General Carey That is true, your Honor.
but
The Court Well, if it be true then it isn't
law. You may. if you can, showthat certain
specific sums Of money were paid to the
defendant at certain times, but it would not
be competent to open up this case for the
trial OF large number of alleged offenses.
Witness identified a number of certified
checks as having been forwarded to the
Secretary of State at different times. as fees
for filing documents, all of which had been
returned as paid. No cross examination.
a BLorTER THAT REVEALS NOTHING.
The next witness called by the prosecu-
ton was +. X. Danforth, who was Record |
ing Clerk in the Secretary of States office
during the inCumbency of d. NJ Burns
He testified that defendant was chief
Deputy, and had charge of the books and
the cash. All the clerks made entries in
the blotter- Witness explained the routine
of the office regarding the receipt and dis |
position of documents received for filing.
etc. When Reynolds was not present Wit
ness generally performed the duties of
Deputy Secretary of State, keeping memo.
randums of transactions, and reporting to
reynolds on his return. Adjustments were
always made with Reynolds on the show
ings made by the blotter. The entries
made by witness in the blotter were ALWAYS
correct
The defense moved to strike out the lat
ter statement.
The Court said it might be that the prose-
cuton expected to connect the witness
SldtelueHl uISCtlS WIN the transaction |
alleged in the Indictment and show that
defendant had personal knowledge that 1914
was received from Dewey & Co, and only
So entered in the cash book; and if so It
would be admissible; otherwise much of
the class of testimony taken must fall.
General Carey insisted on getting in the
desired testimony, but said he was not sure
he could establish the connection directly
with the charge made in the indictment.
The Court said that since the prosecution
was so anxious to get in that kind of testi-
mony he would permit it; but the result
might be instructions to the jury to acquit.
The testimony might go, but the defense
would of course except, and any irrelevant
cy in the question would show for itself
Witness said further that he had no dis
tinct recollection concerning the entry of
the S24 in the blotter, and did not know
who made it.
SOMETIMES BURNS MADE ENTRIES
In the blotter, as did all the clerks in the
office. In Reynolds absence witness would
receive papers for filing, and checks or
money therefor, and turn the same over to
him on his return. Never noticed Reynolds
keeping any books other than the blotter
and large cash book. He had what
seemed to be private book of his own, in
which he sometimes made entries. Could
not say that he used the blotter from which
TO make entries.
Witness