Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-28
CnDt. III. w, HOyyEpte.

To Mr.. Worthington the witness said that
the monthly bills averaged from 5000 to
Sl2.WO. Prior to lSSs no accounts approved
by the witness We're recorded. Witness had
nothing to do with the vouchers approved
by the office beyond those duties described
by him.
Mr. worthington asked the witness If
IL was not true that quite a controversy
arose between the telegraph company and
the Office to the rate paid the company
for telegrdphic work.
Mr.. Birney objected. on the ground that
II was immaterial matter. and the
witness was excused.
MIR. Birney then introduced in evidence
an order. signed by Gen. Myer. directing
telegraphic accounts to be forwarded to
and approved by the disbursing officer.
James p. Whelpley of the American Sc
curity and Trust Company, formerly of
the Office of United States treasurer. eX-
planned the details observed by the Treas
ury Department in placing funds to the
credit of the discussing officers of the gov
eminent. After funds had been placed to
the credit of such officers the department
subsequently acted as the agent of such Of
fcers. the funds then being subject to the
checks of the llisbursfns officers.
To Mr.. Worthington the witness explain
ed that the United States treasurer acted
as the cashier of a bank in such proceed
irgs. the disbursing officers being required
by regulations of the Treasury Department
to state on then checks for what the
checks were intended to pay. The checks
were paid in the lawful money of the Unit
ed States.
Mr.. worthington asked particularly as to
the nature of the money paid on the al
legged forged order, the object of the ques-
ton being. explained Mr.. Worthington, to
show that the grand jury could have de-
scribed the money. If the grand jury could
have described the money. and failed to do
50, the defendant was entitled that
ground to be acquitted.
The witness could not more particularly
describe the money and he was excused
w no ami m tad cd NM 90
of the requisitions made by Gen. Niger dur
Ing the years 1879 and 1850 for disburse-
ment by the defendant disbursing Of
fcer. Also copies of warrants in connec-
ton Herewith. the object of such dccu-
ments being to show that the amounts re-
eerred to therein were made subject to
Capt Howgates checks. Also copies of the
traits.
Counsel for the defense stated that there
was no necessity to introduce the docu-
rlents, Ii would not be denied that the
amounts were duly made subject to the de-
fendant's checks. Mr.. Birney. however,
thought it best to introduce them.
The defendants counsel objected, how
ever. to the introduction of papers subse-
quent to the time of the alleged offense.
Judge McComas thought 1t best to in
troduce only those connected with the al
legged offense.
District Attorney Birney then submitted
900.
Counsel for the defense objected. on the
ground that the prosecution could not
show such state of affairs so far pre-
vious to the alleged offense. The govern
ment claimed that S11 800 had been en-
bezzled in October. 1879. and the sole ques-
ton, they asserted. at issue was did the
defendant embezzle that amount at that
time?
Judge McComas said he would allow the
govern. ment to show how much had been
placed to the credit of the defendant dur
Ing the year preceding the alleged offense,
the object of the prosecution evidently
being to show that at the time of the al
legged offense there was to his credit an
am punt equal to that alleged to have been
taken.
New York Witness.
An exception was noted by the defense,
and Mr.. Birney called Chas. G. NeSmann
of New York city. bookbinder. He stated
that he knew the defendant as Mr.. III. Will
Hams. Witness first met him five or six
years ago. and had done much work for
him.
To Mr.. Wilson the witness said that the
Defendant was in the book business at 81
or "a fth avenue. That section of the city
was one of the busiest and one of the best
known in New York. Some days witness
would see the defendant three times day;
sometimes would not see him for a week
The place was near broadway.
AT one time the defendant lived or Nc
DCUgall. and at ARCHER time east 10th
street. In going to his place of business
the defendant would cross Broadway and
the other most freGuented thoroughfares
The witness had often met the defendant
at the post Office.
Ever meet him." inquired Mr.. Wilson
near the United States courts and mar
yhars Officer"
"Often." replied the witness
Not having at hand some necessary doc
nmentary evidence Mr.. Birney asked the
court to adjourn at this point, $40, until
'nln hiph