Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-16

Mr.. Boudar; On that davx tbe c,tv ~
dchmond lost 800 The desk- hooks mt
gas Tor the Second district at S363 30 v,6iic
on tho general cash-book it is only S279 so
see however, that there was no dis.
crepancy that day. as by adding mn ono of
thc columns | find an error of $50 in tho
auultioh. The mistake is not Corrected
anywhere. -'0O'ou
ELEVEN DOLLARS.
July "a, 1889 requested Mr.. Smith.
o., Inc desk-books that day add up S6O3 On
the general cash shows only $500 g0 n
shortage OF Sll. This IS partially caused
~. ~ Giyines entering gas from the Second
ulsulct as S565.l0 when it was really
SS515;l0. All Of the entries are in Grymes's 3
handwriting. '''0'
z. October II. 1889"
a. There should have been STA. 30. but
the general cash-boOk only showed S733, 90
discrepancy Of S10.31, caused by an
OMISSION So OF 5000 from the gas-recelpts of
the Third district.
q. Who lost that?
A. The city of Richmond.
q. September %, 1890?
a. There was discrepancy of 81. "a that
day. - ''''' 'H"'
Q. July 25. 1890?
A. Inc discrepancy was 1896. The
cash settlement and report 70 the Auditor
Were 6oth IN the handwriting of Grymes.
ana the shortage was not made up in the
deposit.
MARKET ACCOUNTS.
At the instruction of Mr.. Smith, Mr..
Boudar began to go over the accounts of
the market February 27, 1891. was the
hrst date looked 40. The receipts that
day werc Sz0.Sl of which only 50. n was
accounted for on the cash settlement.
On January %, 1891, the receipts of the
Elrst market were $685., of which only
Of 500
December "a. 1890, S3G. O3. receipts of the
FIRST market, was entirely omitted The
Sll .9l received was from an outside source
Iwenty-three dollars were left off the
cash-settlement book on December 4. 1890.
The same amount was omitted from the
cash settlement.
On December 3, 1890. the entire proceeds
Of the Second market, S12.25. were on the
desk book, but were not accounted for.
In every instance, Mr.. Bouiar testified,
the various amounts were omitted from
the daily reports to the Auditor. which
were made and signed by Mr.. Grymes. He
had looked at over 800 of them and all Of
them had Grymes's signature to them.
CHANGED AROUND.
Continuing, Mr.. Boud6r testified that on
November rs, 1890, the receipts of the
two markets were credited up wrong, but
IN the operation the city lost $50.
October -, 1890, the receipts from the First
market as 10y the desk-boOk were S12.39
while the cash-settlement book only ac-
counted for $3.50 The report and deposit
the next day agreed with the cash settle
ment. The discrepancy and loss to the
city was $40.
On October 10, 1890, there was differ
ence between the desk. and cash-scttle-
ment books of Sl3.4O, the omission also
beng in the report and deposit.
The First market receipts on September
/, 1890, were S19.40. Grymes put these
down on the desk book, but when he fixed
up the cash-settlement book he omitted
them entirely.
"Who lost that ?" queried Mr.. Smith.
The city of Richmond" responded Mr..
BoudaT.
ENTIRE oMSnssIONs.
On July %, 1890, the First market re-
ceipts of S14.s5 were entirely omitted from
the cash-settlement book, being down on
the desk-books.
The entire First market receipts of July
7. 1890. amounting TO &3S.25, were left out
Of the cash settlement, and the city Of
Richmond lost that sum. These sums
were IN each instance omitted from the
depOslt-bOOk.
Juryman Norris asked Mr.. Boudar If he
had compared the amounts in the de-
posit- book with the original entries In the
1reasurer's bank book. Mr.. Boudar sad
he had not. but was sure they were right,
for a variation of one cent would have
shown up as between the Ireasurer's and
Auditors Offices.
The original handbook was sent for.
Cross-Examination.
I do not think, replied the witness TO a
ouestiOn. that the entry of the 1th IN the
deposit book is in Grymes's handwriting; ;
the Sth is by young MIR. REYNOLDS. the 9Th
by Nr. Grvmes. and the 10th by Mr.. Il. Z;
REYNOLDS. All the entries in the general
caeh-book are in Alr. Grymess hand
June 9TH Sl4. the receipts of the First
market, were entirely omitted; Inc entry
was made in both books by Mr. Grymes'
and that amount was lost TO the city.
The entlre receipts of the First market
ON lime 6th. in amount $3.50, were omit
ted from the cash-settlement OOoK, thouBh
down on the desk-books.
These discrepancies were never made up.
ON NAV u, 1890, the entry OF Sl2.92 l9r
Gas in the Second market was ehtlreiy
6T,tted from the cash-s settlement book,
although down on the desk-book.
Mr.. Smith: Mr. BOudar, who added up
M Mr Boudar Mr.. Grylnes did: He also
made the last entry on the desk,oooK'
which was omitted by him afterwards b.
Mr.. Wise: Are you sure he ana not put IL
somewhere e'seY ;uoa e. ooo ;f
Mr. Boudar: / ALWAYS examined 70 see II
:. u,os dawn somewhere else. In some
cases Mr., Grymes did put these gas entries 'is
~ otbpr places. Sometimes ne added stail
Tents and gas together, but he dld not 40
so in this instance.
IN GRYNEs's WRITING. ~,
The receipts of the First market on ON may Ia
0 1so0 amounting to S1l, were omitteu, ,Sl en-
81, from the cash-settlement book. ne
"a entry of this amount was lnaue py
Nr CbildTey and the other by MIR, Grylness. ls.
The entry in the cash-book oIhlttihs '"o
entire amount was made by Grymos' O.
April II, 1890, the receipts iroll so 1lo TeO ,ot
ond market were yli.5Oi lTgS TSs entrv %trv was vas
made III one book by OrSlhes anu
Inv him in the other. 90 ,ooo ooiled
e. SI7 more than was on the cash-settle-
,,,,,,t hook. The entries were III uTyino9
nan" ANU hsrk hook had been brought IN az
~ Anne II was compared Win tile ueI
,,aSit. ,n hook in several Instances ana louni
To correspond. ,u. 4ho denosits
Mr. Bondar explained that the uepoiTIiedI ppoiInd
ID General cash entries were co. co.up;eaivi p;aor
w, " ,correspond IN every instance. uancI- or
70 ooI ~ one cent would have led 20 an S;S 9h-
ee,n,instion e,,I and a disclosure OF oil 'he u'S-
crepancies. ,ou w,vr TT
T, making all these inquiries as 20 dateS
IA mounts the Commonwealth AZ
anu alos, had used the reports OF the Mayor
eoi1 o5 Wr Roudar for reference. c;.h g
and H. sootswood inquired OF Mr.; slllatn at;ne >,
~. naner was in evidence 1tl Intiin"tMlhs Az
ina ina he would like to see It. Whsn 'i, w.
! 1hsS 1ls;,h ~ had finished with it he siarteo "
soini1h s'd ~ no Mr.. Spotswood. whoh MI
ls1n told not to receive IL.
yuysE wEsE SO1 DISCREPANCIES. ,ho,
Al. Smifb. SIT; Mr.. Boudar durIns wnae ha
,,ariod did you examine the %@ boo DOORS !" NV
perez PEREZ, Ser;s and Auditors otnces Jr,v
ivaSJp rJa Jpondar / examined them troih 'uiS
, ts. 1sss to March 4, 1891. 10. 90 this kind
~ lo'Ii Iiow many discrepancies OF lnls Ain nd
IN ~ lind made by. Mr.. Gyrh9S' anu
h dia !, you ,Sas The the amount Of them ,n.od 70
wIa' ahe,e mao were 3Sl. They amounteo "
a. ibotlo bl ."rne odd dollars.