Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-27
GEORGE MUNRoE's TRIAL.
The Defense Strikes q snag-A Sudden
Adjournment.

The Defense Strikes q Snag-A Sudden
Adjournment.
The trial of George Munroe, charged
with forging orders for the delivery Of
school teachers salaries to an invest
ment company, of which he was the
president, was resumed before Judge
Smith yesterday morning.
The prosecution wound up the strong
mass Of evidence it has produced against
the defendant by recalling Deputy Dis
trict Attorney B. w. Diehl, and ques-
tioning him as to this information against
Munroe, and the copy of the warrant
contained therein. The prosecution had
been forced to use the copy in evidence,
owing to the absence of the original and
inability to procure it, and the defense
had resorted to every technical objection
possible to keep it out.
Mr.. Diehl testified that he drew the
Information, and copied the order into
it from the original order supplied to
him by Jackson, the missing witness.
He compared the copy with the original,
and testified that the copy was an exact
reproduction of the original. This
closed the testimony for the prosecu-
ton.
When the defense was called for W.
T. Williams, leading counsel for the de-
fendant, was not present, and the case
was opened by W. E. Cox, associated
with him, and Jackson's former partner.
The first witness he called was Deputy
District Attorney Diehl, and he proved
to be damaging one for the defense.
Mr.. Cox wished to show by him that
when Mr.. Jackson and himself were in
.fo~ With him oh nofttnn
the complaint against Munroe, Diehl
had expressed himself as doubtful about
the evidence, and in substance intimated
that there was nothing in the case.
But Mr.. Diehl replied to the questions
put to him in such way that couns sel
would willingly have withdrawn him, if
it had not been too late.
The witness stated that after Mr..
jackson and Mr. Cox had related their
story to him about the orders given to
Jackson by Munroe, he was satisfied
that the name of Helen Henry in one of
the orders was forgery.
Mr.. Cox asked the witness if he did
not then say that the difficulty would
be to connect Munroe with it.
Mr.. Diehl replied that he did say So,
wanting to find out how Munroe could
be connected with it.
"Then Jackson said to you," contin-
ued Mr.. Diehl, addressing Mr.. Cox,
sYou saw Munroe that night, Cox.
''Didn't he admit to you that they were
forgeries.' And you said, NO, he didn't
say that exactly, but said some of the
orders were bogus"
This answer of the witness wss cork
or, and the counsel looked as if he didn't
know which Way to turn.
Mr.. Cox went on and asked the wit
ness If he had not considered it difficult
to connect Munroe with the forgery.
II became sufficiently satisfied that
Mr.. Munroe committed the forgery" he
replied, ito draw the complaint; other
wise would not have drawn it..
Mr.. Diehl having been permitted to
step down and out, City Auditor Lopez
was called, and stated that he had seen
the order in question for Helen Henry
salary, but had not examined it particu-
larly at the time.
Then, over objections by Mr.. McCo-
mas. which Judge Smith overruled, the
defense proceeded to ask Mr.. Lopez the
custom Of his Office about issuing war
rants. and whether, ii he had known an
order to be addressed simply to the city
OF Los Angeles, he would have issued a
warrant.
@. a. Hamilton, deputy county clerk,
N. B. Eddy, deputy county auditor, and
al Cobler, deputy county tax collector,
were interrogated about orders they had
sold to Munroe, and asked in regard to
the forms that had been used, whether
or not they had been directed to the
county auditor or simply to the county
of Los Angeles. All these questions were
asked and answered over the objections
Of the prosecution, who held that they
immaterial, the only question being
what had been done in the case of the
orders in question?
Mr.. Cox then had himself recalled and
proceeded to give his recollection Of the
conversation with Mr.. Diehl. He en-.