The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-02-28
Mr.. Tolbert Vintiicated.

The last day Of the United States Court was
taken up with the case against Joseph Tai,
bert, late postmaster OF Ninety SIX, charsea
with four separate offences: delaying mali,
embezzlement, false returns and paying lot
goods with stamps. This case was taken up
Friday and was finished yesterday, the jury,
after being out two hours, bringing in yer
fSs fss o. s.psnSs 1s " Sas ne ,e
dant paid. Talbert was ably defended oy
Cothran, Wells, Ansel & Cothran. Judge
Cothran and Solicitor Ansel made strong
speeches In his defence.
The foregoing extract from the Greenville
daily news OF Sunday last relates 10 the trial
OF one OF our fellow citizens for alleged viola
tions OF the Postal laws OF the United States.
We are informed that the following are the
facts Of the case.
In June of last year A. McNeill Turner, OF
Ninety-Six. was appointed Postmaster al
Ninety-Six to succeed Joseph Tolbert anu IN
due time a blank bond was forwarded from
the DEPARTMENT at Washington which was
executed land returned by mail about the
SOth OF June. One of the sureties on this
bond was sister Of the appointee who signed
her name as Carrie Turner. One of the rules
OF the Department is not to take marrleo
woman as obliger upon bond AMI there was
nothing in the signature to indicate whether
the lady in question was or was not u mar
ried woman. II 1t was ever returned from
WASHINGTON there was no evidence OF such
fact.
Certain 1t is that the bond was no: approv-
ed by the Postmaster General or any CON-
mission signed to Turner until the 5th OF
September following, for that is the date OF
Turner's original commission, based upon
new bond. He, however, received duplicate
commission about the 1st Of October and
now has both the original and the duplicate
each bearing date OF September 5th. On the
4th September, the day before the commits
sion was signed in Washington, Tolbert was
arrested at Ninety-Six by Post Of1ce In
spector and the 5th, the day that the COM
mission beers date, he was taken before Unit
ed States Commission Calvert, at Spartan
burg, charged With having extracted turner's
commission from Registered letter In the
Postofice at Ninety-Six. The date OF the
commission which was the original commits
sion showed conclusively that 1t could not
have been at Ninety-Six before the date Of It's
execution and consequently could not nave
been extracted nom the register letter.
There were four indictments against Toll
bert found by the Grand Jury in the United
States Court one for retaining two registered
letters, one for retaining two unregistered let-
ters. one for selling Postoffice stamps and
stamped envelopes without getting the cash
for them and one, the most serious OF all, for
converting to bis own use monies belonging
to the Post Office Money Order funds In bis
Office.
All of these indictments were tried togeth-
er and the defendant was promptly acquitted
OF all the charges except the one OF disposing
OF stamps without receiving the cash for the
same, but upon this they recommended the
defendant to the mercy Of the court. 1t Is
said that upon the first ballot taken by the
Jury they stood II to for acquittal en- all the
charges.
1t seems that the Postoffice building was
rented from Mr.. Joel c. Wier and during the
three years or more that the relation OF land
lord and tenant existed, the amount OF SSS IN
stamps and stamped envelopes were paid
from time to time and perhaps for the con-
venience Of both parties upon the account.
The proof showed that Tolbert at all times
had In hand either in cash or warrants OF the
Government more than sufficient funds 70
cover the amount OF money order monies IN
his Office and this being made to appear the
charge OF embezzlement fell TO the ground.
1t also appeared from proof derived from
the Postal Department at Washington that
there was nearly ssS to his credit there on &C
count Of postage stamps and stamped enVei-
opes.
Yet the law forbids the sale or exchange OF
postage stamps for anything but money and
that at the true value of the same. and 1t was
for this technical violation Of the law that
the defendant was convicted on the first In
dictment. In this there was no moral guilt
and the strong point in the defendants favor
was that he had made no profit out OF the
transaction and on the Sth OF September
when he turned the Office oves to his success
sor he did not owe the Government one cent.