The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-06
L * 9 T
( T|0M.
TRYING THE Big -FOUR.
The Indicted Commissions
ers of the Board of
Works Face a
jury.
THOSE DoCTORED PAYROLLS.
THOSE DOCTORED PAYROLLS.
District Attorney Winfield Sets Out
to Prove That a Conspiracy Ex-
listed.

Politicians and contractors crowded the
Court House this morning, having been
attracted by the trials of the big -Four"
combination of the Board of Works.
When Judges Lippincott, Paxton and
Hoffman took their seats on the
bench the "Big Four were engaged in
an earnest confab on the porch
of the Court House. President Kern,
Commissioners Hilliard and Watt, and
ex-Commissioner Thomas Reynolds
seemed much concerned about the trial,
and their faces wore an anxious express
sion when Prosecutor Winfield called the
list of witnesses Mr.. Winfield was aided
by Joseph M. Noonan, the Assistant
Prosecutor,
The Indictment was for conspiring to
pay an alleged illegal pay roll of 81 500 for
the month of January which, was passed
in February of the same year.
Before the trial was begun the District
Attorney asked that capias be issued
for James Smith, a witness, who is em-
ployed in the Custom House, and the
order was given.
The jury selected are August Witkesser,
Daniel Davis, Richard Stanton, John B.
Morrison, Washington Russell, Charles
Stryker, Frederick p. Wilkins, Charles
Perkins, James McCloskey, Smith Den
ming, John J. Warner and Torrance
Foley.
THE PROSECUTORS OPENING.
The District Attorney said in his open
ing addreSs:-"TheSe men were indicted
last February. They were then the major
ity of the Board of Works. They are
charged with conspiracy to defraud We
dence this conspiracy, but we will show
from the acts of these men that
this conspiracy existed. The payroll
for january contains among other
names those of Richard Dooly,
for twenty-four days pay, when he was
employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad
of James Smith and of James Larkins,
who were not employed by the city. In
another pay roll there are names of other
men who never worked for the city. We
will also produce check to Garret Haley
for 500 which was duplicated the next
month.
''The payroll of 1887 has beyond a ques-
ton been doctored and cooked up. Names
have been added to it. and the same is
true of the October payroll"
MARTIN FINCK CALLED.
Martin Finck was the first witness. He
is clerk of the present Board.
He testified that he identified three of
the pay rolls which passed through his
hands as clerk, and that Hilliard, Kern,
Watt and Reynolds were members. The
January pay roll of 1888 was passed in
February Aftci it passed out of his
and was signed by the Mayor.
All of the three payrolls he identified
took this course A bill of $27 for turning
off water was passed October, 1888, and
neither of the bills of Garret Haley for
turning off water in 1888. of 500 each,
were presented to the Board
That finished the direct examination
and ex-Judge Garretson asked on cross
examination if the certificates of
out by the foremen of the different gangs
Of men, and he was told it was. The pay
roll for January, 1888, was presumably
made out by the foremen of the gangs
and they swore to it before the committee
"The certified list" he said does not
90 to the Board until the majority of the
committee and Chief Engineer sign it. 1t
is then handed to me and ! present it to
the Board, and after it passed certified
copy is sent to the Board of Works; the
Chief Engineer endorses the payroll after
the committee acts on it,"
"The resolution for turning off water in
1887 has more names on 1t than the certi-
ficate calls for; can you explain it?"
asked Judge Garretson.
'The other names may appear in
'Were John McMahon and Richard
paid more than once?"
HThey were paid once, as represented on
the certificate, and Garret Haley also,
They were paid December Is, 1887
This answer, If true, disposes of that'al-
legged fraud.
MR. RUGGLEs' TESTIMONY.
IT,, ,.s,, ,.,,, d ~ +ba ,,ovk
ness, testified that "the payrolls CORE
spond with the certificates could not
rectify these mistakes, for it was impossi-
BILE for me to tell whether the men were
employed or not; l cannot tell
from the payrolls you exhibit
or not; don't know whether the erasures
that seem to have been made were done
before or since signed the payroll; do
not know whose handwriting the changes
are in; the clerk of the Committee on
Streets and Sewers at that time was Mr.
Braun; the changes are not in his hand
writing"
Prosecutor Winfield asked how it was
that the names of Amos Burns and John
Borum were on the payroll of streets and
sewers and also as carpenters for the same
amount for the same month.
Mr. Ruggles replied that he did not
know, but supposed 1t to be an error.
On cross examination by Judge Garrett
son, he said he did not know how the
names were on the two payrolls, but that
was simply O transfer from one depart
ment to another, and that accounts for the
erasure.
James NJ. Braun, clerk of the Chief En-
pfneer. and who was Committee Clerk in
iSS7 and 1888, testified that it was part
of his duty to make out payrolls and that
the one shown him was in his handwrit-
ing: he did not know who made the
erasures, and added, when shown another
payroll that Street Commissioner Du-
mont, at his request, assisted him in COM
pleting it,
LOOKS LIKE DUMoNT's WRITING.
.swben the Chief Engineer signs the
payroll, ls it not completeg
at is, sir,
.'Has any one right to add any names
to it after he signsS"
"No, SIR
.sAre not these names in the handwrit-
ing Of Mr.. DumontN
Il don't know; it looks like it."