Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-02-05
Photographs Of the Vouchers Cause
a Dispute.
ARGUMENTS BY BOTH SIDES
Western Union Officials Testify as
to Companys Methods.
A S T U B B Or Fl G H T

with embezzlirg the sum of $11 800, and
with having forged the name of Treasurer
Roswell r. Rochester of the Western
Union Telegraph Company to voucher
for that sum, was delayed for a time this
morning while Judge McComas passed up
on the qualifications of the talesmen
drawn for jury service during the present
month. Mr.. A. 8. Worthington's illness
still prevented his appearance. and the
burden of the defense fell upon Mr.. Jere
NJ Wilson, he being assisted by Mr.. John
C. Heads Mr.. Worthington's professional
associate. The defendant was, as usual,
accompanied by his daughter. Miss Ida
Fowgate, and she and her father appear
wholly favorable to the accused man. In
terest in the case, apparently, because of
the tedousness Of the trial, appeared to
have become less today, the crowd In at
tendance being rather limited.
When the trial was adjourned yesterday
afternoon the matter particularly at Issue
was whether the government could law
fully inquire as to offenSes alleged in the
other indictments returned against the de-
PENDANT
The question arose in this way: The wit
ress on the stand, Treasurer Rochester of
the Western Union Telegraph Company.
had been shown a number Of checks drawn
by the defendant during 1879 in favor Of
the company. Some of the checks, the
through Mr.. Whitney, then the Washing
ton manager of the company; one he had
received from Mr.. Green. then president of
the company. and as to two of them he
could not say how he became possessed of
them The witness having identified the
signature Of the defendant to the checks
the district attorney handed him the check
mentioned In the indictments at issue,
drawn September q. 1879. to the Western
Union Telegraph Company or bearer, and
asked the witness if the company had
received the check or its proceeds. Mr..
Rochester replied that he had never seen
the check until 1t was shown to him last
week by Mr.. Birney. and said further
that the company had never received the
planned that checks in payment of the
companys accounts had always been made
payable by the defendant to Witness as
treasurer. or to his order. and not to the
company or bearer, as the check for 81 800
was. made.
Mr.. Wilson Objects.
Mr.. Birney then handed the witness a
check. dated February 49, 1879. for $l2 100.
made payable by the defendant to the
company or bearer the amount Of which
the defendant Is charged in another in
dictment with having embezzled, and asked
Mr.. Rochester II the company mad ever
received the proceeds of that check. Be-
fore he could answer, Mr.. Wilson entered
an objection, the ground that IL the
witness was allowed 10 answer the erect
of the inquiry would be to require the de-
PENDANT to answer and defend an entirely
different alleged offense covered in differ
ent indictment And. said Mr.. Wilson, If
the inquiry was allowed as to one indict-
ment not at issue the government would
be free to inquire to all others standing
against the defendant. The purpose of
the district attorney. as Mr.. Wilson under
stood it, was to m IKE the inquiries to show
that the different alleged wrongful acts
of the defendant were parts of general
scheme to defraud and rob the government
But, said Mr.. Wilson. there was no con-
nection between the alleged wrongful acts,
and until all the indictments were con-
soidated inquiries must be confined to
the particular matters alleged in the two
indictments on which the defendant was
being tried.
Mr. Wilson then entered upon an elabor-
ate argument in support of his objection,
but the trial was adjourned until this
morning before he had concluded. Upon
the resumption of the trial this morning.
Mr.. Wilson read several authorities iE sup
port of his contention. remarking that il
the government would consolidate and try
at one time alr the indictments standing
against the defendant the defendant would
be satisfied, and could then successfully
meet and defend all the alleged offenses.
Mr. Birney replied that it was impossible
to consolidate the different indictments.
whereupon Mr. Wilson stated to the court
that if the inquiries were permitted the
defendant would be taken by surprise,
would be placed at very serious disadvan-
tage ard would, II effect, be placed on
trial on every one Of the various indict-
ments.
Mr.. Bfrney's Reply.
In reply Mr.. Birney called attention to
the fact that the charges had been stand
ir.g for fifteen years. several suits had
sprung out Of them, and the defendant
could in no way be surprised by an in
uuiry as to any or all of the alleged Of
lenses.
The object of the inquiry, explained Mr..
Birney, was merely to show that in MAX
ing the checks payable Ito bearer" the de-
PENDANT had departed from an invariable
custom and that such departure was part
of a general scheme to rob the govern
ment, checks for legitimate bills of the
company having always been made by the
defendant payable to the company's or
der
In dispcsing of the question Judge Nc
Comas referred to the fact that the evil
dence already introduced tended to show
that bills for legitimate accounts of the
telegraph company had been paid by checks
drawn by the defendant on the assistant
United States treasurer at New York, the
checks being made payable to the COM
pany's order. The alleged embezzled
amount, S11, 800, was, said the court, rep
resented by check drawn ,an,. on the onl,ea
to the company or bearer.
The government had asked as to another
similar alleged offense, that of February
IL, 1860, 1Of the purpose u sAo"AHS eho
the defendant was engaged in general
scheme of wrongdoirg, the inquiry being
particularly made to show. If possible q
guilty intent on the part of the defendant.
For such a purpose, remarked Judge Nc
Ccmas, ne considered the inquiry proper
one Judge McComas also referred to the
fact that the check of September G. 1879,
as we'll as that of February 49, 1879, was
after being made payable to the company
Endorsed by the defendant. That fact, said
the court, tended to enlighteh the jury as
to whether the checks were OR were not
so drawn as to enable the defendant to
convert their proceeds to his own use.
Nevertheless, said Judge McComas the
Jury would be carefully instructed that If
they should conclude that the check of
February Is, 1879, was a fraudulent one.
they could not and should not because of
that fact alone convict the defendant as
to the one of September 6. 1879. The wit
ness would, therefore, be allowed to an
swer.
Property Clerk.
Mr. Wilson noted an exception and them
before proceeding with the examination of
Mr. Rochester, Mr.. Birney called Martin r.
Thorpe, property clerk Of the War Depart
ment, who testified to experimenting in
1890 the accumulated and passed ac-
counts of the signal service office. He