Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1889-06-06


geries AS Vouchers for Regtstra-
tiOn-Pubiic Interest i'm the Triai
Betrayed-The Prisoners Held for
the Upper Court.
The preliminary skirmish In the big
contest whose probable outcome will be
revelation before the upper court rs to
who Ia responsible for tho existence OF
swarms of forged tax receipts which have
been widely used In the reoent May regis
trations came off at the City Hall last
evening week before Judge Ball.
The first spat in the legal combat
necessarily possessed features of special
interest, as overt accusations Of political
fraudulency have been banded back and
forth with unstinted profusion until at
last the tacit wish Of the public Is that
proof and not reiterated assertion be pro-
duced. The first instalment of the for
mer was produced last night week, and
with such overwhelmingly irrefutable evil
dence that the attorney for the defence,
after the most careful scrutinization Of
documents and the most thorough cross
examination of witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, shaped his course to ono equivalent
to surrender, and the three prisoners
were held for court on the indictments
as charged.
The court room was crowded TO excess
by citizens Of all politics and color ap-
parently extremely interested in the out
como Of the trial.
The first prisoner called was Thomas
Tillman, @ stalwart. broad shouldered
colored man of envisble thew and sinew.
He gezed patronizingly around the court
room, his features lighting up with
pleasure as he recognized the reassuring
presence OF Edmund Mitchell, Jr.,
candidate for city assessor, who is also
surety for one Of the prisoners charged
with presenting forged tax receipt.
Alongside Mr.. Mitchell sat Henry O.
Mahaffy, another of the sureties. In
front OF them were Henry O. Conrad,
Esq., attorney for the defence. and
| Deputy Attorney general Thomas Davis,
who watched the cases for the State.
| President A. G. Wilson OF the Depart
ment OF Elections, and ex-Oollector
| Patrick Neary, also Inspectors William
\ M. Knox and DR.. Charles M. Almond
with William f. MoOloskey, chairman of
the board of inspectors, all Of the
| Second Election district, Fifth ward, the
| location of the alleged violation of law
which took place May 18th, were seated
within the railings.
The indictment was for presenting tax
receipts for the purpose Of registration,
| which receipts are forged.
William M. Knox, an inspector Of the
district referred to, was the first witness.
He identified Tillman as presenting q
certain receipt and with it attempting to
have himself registered as voter. Will
liam II. McOloskey, chairman of the in
spection board, testified similarly. He
knew the prisoner we'll. The witness re-
fused to allow the prisoner to register.
City Solicitor Turner-"Did he present
o receipt?"
s'Yes."
"Have you itf"
Mr.. MoOloskey then quickly produced
o pink bit Of paper, a sample OF one OF
the already notorious alleged forgeries.
| The city solicitor handed the document
ACROSS to MIR. Conrad, who attempted o
close scrutiny of the important bit of
paper. The illumination in the court
room was SO poor that the lawyer clam
bered up to Judge Balls desk, and with
the help of the single electric light in
veEtigated the receipt to slightly better
advantage.
Mr.. Turner to the witness-''On what
grounds did you refuse Tillman the right
OF registration, and why did you retain
this receipt 7"
SIT was dated November 18th, 1888. I
knew it to be bogus from the fact that
had one dated November I'd, 1888, which
/ had taken from him at the last Presi-
DENTAL election"
The assertion came with some surprise
to his listeners on this revelation of the
inspectors careful administration of his
duties.
Ex-Oollector Patrick Neary was next
called. His appearance in the witness
box riyeted the attention Of every one In
court in his direction.
"Mr. Neary," said Mr.. Turner, holding
up the bogus paper. Look at that. Does
it bear your signature2"
'No, SIR" was the emphatic and clear
reply following just oneseeond's scrutiny
of the pink paper.
why do you say go ?" -...
"From its general appearance. Also in
receipts Of this kind (pink colored ones)
invariably wrote In the date 1889 in
my own handwriting. Here, (holding
up the paper) IL is o forgery. Also it is a
that which used at that time-same as
used In 1886.
"will you please look at the seal"
Mr.. Neary-"The light is bad. cannot
see very well.
He then took it around to the light in
front of Judge Ball.
''I see one thing" continued Mr.. Neary,
as he peered CLOSELY at the receipt. ut
has ive.pointed star. My seal is q
rosette of six points. That is another
clear proof to me OF its being forgery"
Deputy Attorney general Davis, Mr..
Conrad, City Solicitor Turner, Chief
swiggett and Chairman Wilson then
gathered around the judges chair be-
meath the sleotric light, when a species
of friendly family diagnosis of the in
teresting document took place. The op-
posed counsel in turn put it up to the
light, handed it from one to the other,
oonversing in low tone, which could
not be caught at the reporters table.
Mr.. Neary continued;
1.-THE signature is also altogether diff.
ferent from mine"
Mr.. Conrad-"Mr. Neary, how many
seals have you in your Officer"
zone. I have had only one during
my whole term Of Office. The seal has
bsen changed on January 1st, 1889. But
prior to that but one seal has been in use
since the law (ot '73, think went into
effect. It has bsen handed down in the
collectors office ever since then. have
sealed by the same stamp all receipts
since have bsen in office up to January,
1882"
Mr.. Conrad -"You are positive on
your oath, Mr.. Neary, that this (holding
up the pink receipD is not your sigma
ture 2"
eyes" .@...-...
Mr.. Oonrad-"Lrook at that signature" !"
The witness was shown another receipt
which at first he Thought was his sigma