Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-28
GEORGE MUNROE FOUND GUILTY
A Futile Attempt to Shift the
Crime on Chadwick.
An Interesting Probate Decision
From Judge Clark.
Yestsrday's Happenings in the Various
Tribunals-GonxaIes ON Trial.
New suits-Court
Notes.

teachers warrants.
The prosecution was very much sur
prised when he went upon the stand in
his own defense, as it had been thought
he would not risk the cross-examination
sure to follow.
The story he told was very gauzy, and
it actually taused smile in the court
room whenlhe boldly proceeded to un-
load the responsibility of the forgerleH
from under.
It ia well known that Chadwick, OF
blessed memory in connection with J.
M. Damron and ex-Justice Lockwood,
is not now in the city and has not been
for several months, and the mention OF
his name in this case was evidently re-
garded by the defense as very adroit
proceeding. The thinness of Munroe's
story developed in the cross-examina-
ton by Mr. McComas.
When court convened Mr.. Williams,
of counsel for the defense, made an effort
to have struck out of the record por-
tion of Deputy District Attorney Diehl's
damaging testimony given the day be-
fore, but after some sparring between
the court and himself, the motion was
denied.
The defense called superintendent
Friesner OF the city schools and asked
him: "What is the rule governing the
city schools? Are salaries OF teachers
due before they are earned, or not?"
The court allowed the question over
objections by the district attorney, and
Mr.. Frieener said salaries we're paid
after they were earned paid by the city
treasurer.
The counsel for the defendant put
their heads together, and he was called
to the witness stand. In response to
preliminary questions he stated his
name to be George Munroe, and that he
is an accountant by profession. He had
been employed as an expert by the
grand juries of last year and the year
previous, and had also been a deputy
county assessor in this county. He also
said he is q man of family.
81 saw the Helen Henry order," re-
sponded the defendant in rather low
tone of voice. to questions by Mr..
Williams.
'Isaw it February /, 1892. had not
seen it prior to that time. saw other
orders at that time. Orders by Brown,
Garcia, Neuner and others. l don't re-
member all of them now. was in the
business of loaning money then, and
was an accountant also. wac engaged
in advancing money on salaries, and
had been about four months"
estate whether or not you sold the
Helen Henry order?" impressively
asked Mr.. Williams.
II put them up as collateral with j.
w. Jackson. Altoge ther with him that
month had put up 1890 or $780,"
"When did you first see the order?"
''I believe February 1st."
"Who had it?" oueried Mr.. Williams.
81. w. Chadwick"
There was considerable of sensation
over this answer, particularly as the
defendant miscalled Chadwick's initials,
but when Mr.. Williams called his atten-
ton to the matter he said in CO infused
manner:
"J. S. Chadwick, Of course"
Continuing he said: "That and some
others took from him and discounted.
A few of them were made out by myself,
and some on my own blanks. After l
bought the Helen Henry order went to
the city auditors Office, and Auditor Lo-
pez showed me the pay roll. Her
name was upon it, and the other names
ALSO"
The direct examination stopped right
there, and Mr.. McComas began to Cross
examine the defendant.
"Do you know how Chadwick got your
blanks?"
"He came to me for them. We were
not working in conjunction. had been
loaning money to him for three or four
months. The first orders were written,
and told him j would only take them
II mt vSo vyiv1 n
him commission.
"Chadwick's name does not appear on
the order? 2"
sIt was payable to the company.
Those in February were payable to the
company, and those in January to jack
son."
"Tell the jury why Chadwick had an
order drawn in favor Of the investment
,company-which was youraelf-and not
to himself"
ssI told him would not take them ex.
cept on my blanks"
ssThe amount Of it was he was working
for you, then2"
she was not"
"Working for himself?"
ST presume he was"
ssHe gets an order of Helen Henry and
has it made payable to you? How much
did he get?"
s'Seventy.six dollars"
"Was he in the city then?"
SHE was"
Don't you know be has been away
from the city for q year,"
ssNo, sir, he has not. He was IN my
Office in March and April. have not
had him subpnnaed. don't know bu
that he is here now."
In response to further questions, the
defendant said: II say the January
pay roll in the city auditors Office, that
is list of the teachers and employees
Chadwick did not take me around. In.
Helen Henry order was in his hanc
when saw it. didn't pay him cash
but allowed it on his account, just q
with Jackson. / always did business II
my private Office. No one was present
Jackson told me the orders were no
honored. did not pay him back my
self, but have an idea who paid him
He was paid at my instance. dom
know where the Helen Henry order is
/ gave 1t to Chadwick. I haven't trie'
to find him. Inever mentioned Chad
wick to Jackson. did not tell Mr.. 90.
who was responsible when I told hir
some of the orders were bogus"
Mr.. McComas did not pursue the ir
quiry any further, and after a few i'm
material questions OF City Auditor Le
peg, Attorney Williams took the stsnd