Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-01-06
MIR. BURGDORFF'S TRIAL.
The Alleged Fraudulent Naval vOuch.
erS Cases in Court.

The Alleged Fraudulent Naval VOuch.
ers Cases in Court.
The trial of Augustus Burgdorff, indicted with
E. C. Kirkwood and Daniel Carrigan, on the
charge of presenting false bills against the gov
eminent for goods purporting to have been fur
nlshed to the naval bureau of medicine and
surgery, was continued yesterday afternoon
after THE STARS report closed. Medical d.
rector John w. Brown, of the museum of
hygiene, testified substantially that goods, rep
resented in the bills as having been furnished
to the museum had not been furnished.
THE TESTIMONY TO-DAY.
This morning Howard L. Prince clerk of the
Police Court, produced the docket and read the
entry OF the case, June 26th, 1884, and identi-
fed the papers in the case now on trial as
being in the case docketed, but the testimony
was ruled out.
B. L. Baldwin, paying teller National Bank of
the Republic, testified that Burgdorf did bnsi-
ness at the bank and identified his signatures
on the checks. Ff't:.'ti',
The case for the government was closed CON-
ditionally.
Mr.. BURGDoRFF TEsr1F1Es.
Mr.. Burgdorf testified that he had been in
business about eighteen years; had both
made and sold furniture to the government,
and he did much work for the bureau Of medi-
cine and surgery. The fact was that he had
furnished the articles charged in the vouchers,
and the government owed him one dollar on
tucIIl Set LII consequence Vi b MISTAKE. ne lcIL
the bills with Carrigan or Kirk wood; thinks the
latter. The bills were correct and the parties
mentioned gave him voucher. Witness ex-
sstns thas he never
on the vouchers. His bills as he rendered them
were sometimes several feet in length, nut In
the vouchers they were condensed: Witness
never used the term "mOdeP' case in his bills;
the word "modep' was put in at the depart
ment.
Mr.. Chandler asked if he had denied his sig
nature in the Police Court.
The government stating that the court had
ruled that testimony out, the question was
Withdrawn.
Witness had no personal knowledge as to
whether the cases were used as ''modei" or dds
trial, and finally went to the department, and
there was written letter from DR.. Van Ryppen
generating him. Witness identified a copy of
the letter, and was about to read 1t.
The government objected, stating that this was
simply note from an individual to him, and
the best evidence was the original. and besides
DR.. Van Ryppen was here.
The court ruled out the letter.
Witness continued, stating that he went with
Dr. Van Van fyppen and pointed work
congratulated him that he had made so salts
factory showing, and gave him letter ex-
and sealed, and witness took it to the district
attorney, who congratulated him on his limo
cence, as also did Mr.. Coyle. Witness then ex-
pected his case to be ended.
CrOss-examination: Witness went with Gen.
work TO DIR. Van Ryppen. Did not point out
work at the Naval hospital. Vouchers of JAN
A. 1884. tor $4S1.5O, and Jan. 7th, for $1O6, for
work furnished the Naval hospital, were iden-
titled by witness.
Mr.. Wofthington asked witness to produce
his books, stating that he believed Mr.. Burg
dorf to be an honest man.
Mr.. Chandler objected and asked why the
government was showing SO much zeal in con-
victlng an honest man.
The court ruled that defendant having vol
unfairly taken the stand he was subject to the
most rigid cross-examtnatiOn and the INQUIRY
might proceed.
Witness examined the bills and vouchers.
finding the bills to amount to 81 ,O91. so and the
vouchers to $1,O97. Witness did not take his
books to the Navy department, but took q
memorandum.
The court remarked on the amounts so nearly
corresponding, and asked what was the theory
of the government
The district attorney said that the case was
resolved nearly into question Of law
whether the articles as set out In the voucher
were different from those furnished, and were
stated to be furnished at one place when they
were not
Mr.. Worthington repeated that he believed
that Mr.. BurgdOrf was On honest man. He de-
sired II a conviction followed only q minimum
sentence.
The court said II the voucher was changed at
the department he did not see how he could be
held responsible. He asked Mr.. Burgdorff IL he
intended to defraud any one, and he denied it
emphatically.