Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-01-07
AUGUSTUS BURG D0RFF ACQUITTED.

In the Criminal Court this morning the trial
of August Burgdorff. charge" with presenting
false bills against the government for goods
purporting to have been furnished TO the
bureau of medicine and surgery, Navy depart
ment, was resumed. Mr.. Burgdorff was recalled
and explained the entries in his books. and
said when he presented his bills the items were
allowed and everything was satisfactory.
DIR. w. X. Van Rypen, the assistant of the
bureau of medicine and surgery, was called,
and the government asked what took place be-
| fore he gave the letter to Mr.. Burgdorff
The defense objected because the case had
been closed. Mr.. Burgdorf having been recalled
only on one point.
The court said he did not reopen the case for
general testimony, but the examination might
be confined to the particular voucher.
CHANGING ITEMS FROM ONE ACCOUNT To
ANOTHER.
Witness said that in June, 1855 Mr.. Burg
dorff came to him with the vouchers and origi-
nal bills, and called off from memorandum
the items, and witness checked the amounts on
the original bills. Some Of the items of Mr..
BIS memorandum were not on the bill. and
when they got through the amounts footed up
about the same. He had before had conversa-
tiuns with the officers of the museum, labori-
tory, ETC., and knew through them what Mr..
BurgdoIf had furnished, and knew personally
the articles were there DIR. Van Rypen ex-
planned that the contingent fund of the bureau
was low, but the museum of hygiene being
annex Of the bureau and having appropria-
ton, the bill made out against the mu-
scum although the furniture went TO the bu-
reau. If Il mad been made against the bureau
the accounting officers of the Treasury would
not have passed il. The direction as to what
appropriation Ia draw Oh WAS given by the
geon general. The change OF items was made
To make il appear that the goods were for
the m uSeuu.
BY IA Juror: Would merchant make out bills
Witness: Not now; but it was customary
then.
By defendant: A dealer cannot get his pay
except with the approval and direction OF The
chief of the bureau. Witness wrote the letter
after the interview and he went into the in-
Quiry at the instance of the district attorney
and the government.
DIR. p. S. WALES WAS REcALLED,
and asked to the rem val of his Office and
stated that Mr.. Burgdorff did the work, but he
did not remember giving direction about the
bill.
Mr.. Walker was recalled and said the GUS
tom of the pay office was to require itemized
bills at the date of their transaction. On cross
examination witness stated that the vouchers
were prepared at the department and il was
exceptional that one came to him in the hand
writing of the dealer.
thoritieS.
THE COURT SAYS Mr.. BURGDoRFF SEEMS TO
HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE LAW.
After the recess, as Mr.. Worthngton was pro-
ceeding to discuss some propositions of law, the
court interrupted him, and said that the court
was not disposed to make this q test case, for
this party, according to the views of the dis
tr1ct attorney, seems TO have complied with
the law. There is no proof that he received
any payments or presented false bills no proof
that he had received q penny unjustly. If an
officer of the government sees nit TO trifie with
the funds ii is a matter for which they are re-
sponsible and not the dealer. They may do
this to carry on the business of their Offices and
are responsible to the government, but the
dealer should not be held responsible for their
acts 1t did not look right tor one set OF Off
GERS to be prosecuting man for what was done
by another set OF officers, and the government
could Ill afford TO hold q man who had done
In this case, and the court ought not to counte-
nance such q proceeding, although he agreed
with the general views Of the district attorney
The prrsof was that the defendant had done a
great deal OF work for the government and
there is not complaint In all these years that
he received q cent that did not belong to him.
A man with such record and standing should
Eot be prosecuted, and the duty OF the court
was to stand between him and the prosecution.
He was not inclined TO consider such u case Is
this u test case, and would Lot decide the points
here, but wait until they came up in another
case.
A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.
The court directed Q verdict for the defendant
and the Jury returned . verdict OF not guilty.
Mr.. Burgdor6 showed some emotion, and
was soon returning his thanks to the jury and
receiving the congratulations OF hfs frienos.
John g. Stevens, president Of the United New
Jerney railroad and Canal company, Killed him
ielf in Trenton, ~. j., yesterday afternoon, BY
shooting himself In the heed With pistol