Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-11

At O'Clock yesterday afternoon James
A. McCusker, who has of late been en-
gagged in the business of collecting city
tax rebates, appeared before Justice
Austin for examination upon the charge
of forgery preferred against him by J. ].
Keith, agent for the San Francisco firm
of II. P. Gregory & Co., machinists.
The charge against McCusker was forg-
ing an order upon the City Auditor for
the payment of $32 rebate upon the city
taxes paid in 1889 by H. P. Gregory
& Co.
City Treasurer M. d. johnson was the
| first witness called, and after testifying
| that he knew the defendant and was ac-
quainted with his handwriting, he was
shown the order alleged to have been
| forged, and after a critical examination
of the document, declared the body of ii
| to be in McCusker's handwriting, but
was in doubt as to the signature be-
ing in the same writing.
| Frank E. Lopez, City Auditor, knew
| the defendant; saw him on the morning
of the 9Th, inst, when he called at the
city hall and presented an order for the
demand of H. P. Gregory & Co. The
! instrument referred to is an order on the
City Auditor, dated December Is, 1889,
and reads as follows:
"Please deliver to James A. McCuskel
my petition or demand, having relin-
Quished the same to him, for rebate on
city taxes for 1889.
(Signed.) "H. P. GREGORY & Co."
After looking critically at the sigma.
ture, Lopez refused to accept the order
and McCusker went away. While the
witness was at dinner, however, McCus-
ker returned, and presenting the order
to his deputy, passedit successfully and
obtained the demand.
City Clerk Freeman q. Teed was very
we'll acquainted with the defendant and
his handwriting. He detailed the cir
cumstances under which those who were
entitled to rebate proceeded in order to
get their money back, and explained
how the demand came to be in the
hands of the City Auditor. He was
then shown the order, but could moi
state positively that the handwriting OF
it was that of McCusker.
F. H. Teale, deputy city auditor, saw
McCusker in the Office on the 9Th inst.
and the defendant asked him if there
was warrant there for III. P. Gregory &
Co., and upon learning that there was
presented the order in question, and tn,
witness surrendered the demand.
j. j. Keith, the complainant, knew
the signature OF each member of tn
firm of H. P. Gregory & Co., OF Sal
Francisco, and that of his brother, who
until two weeks ago, was sole agent O
the firm in Los Angeles. He, himself
was in charge OF the Office at present
and no one had authority to sign for tn
firm but himself. First heard of tn
matter on Saturday last, when he re
ceived a telephone message from tn
City Auditors Office. Went up to tn
city hail. and, on being shown the order
at once pronounced it forgery. o.
cross-examination the witness state
that he had no knowledge of the rebat
until that time, and did not know of hi
own knowledge whether or not hi
} brother had authorized anyone to sig
such an order. The prosecution reste
its case at this juncture, and the dc
fendant's counsel, r. +. Del Vale
moved the court to dismiss the defend
. ant on the ground that the evidence wa
insufficient to warrant his being held
, The court denied the motion, and, as tn
defense offered no testimony, McCuske
was held to answer to the charge in tn
Superior Court under bonds in the SUI
of 81 800