Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1895-05-18
TAKING TESTIMONY
The Grantz-McEniry Case in
Hearing.
EVIDENCE INTRODUCED so FAR.

ings.
The case of Henry W. Grautz. late
delivery clerk in the Moline post
Office. against Matthew J. McEniry.
the postmaster. for alleged SANDER
Gus words used by Mr.. McEniry to
Mr.. Grantz in the presence of other
employees of the Office at the time OF
Grantz resignation from the post
Office, was begun yesterday after
noon after the acceptance of the jury
in the circuit court as ri, en- last night.
W H. Gest and j. L. kenwortby
represent the plaintiff and William
McEniry and Sweeney IL Walker ap-
pear for the postmaster
As outlined in the opening state
ments. il is n simple case on the part
of the plaintiff of alleged slanderous
words used by Mr.. McEniry towards
the plaintiff without legal provoca-
ton or excuse. On the other hand.
Mr.. Sweeney for the defense, claims
that Mr.. Grantz being delivery clerk,
the most important position in the
Office, took advantage of the resigna-
tion of the mailing clerk, Charles
johnson. to also and without warning
or notice to the postmaster, resign at
the same time that JohnsOn's resig-
nation was to take effect. The effect
of this action. it was claimed, was to
so cripple the business Of the post
Office rs to bring the postmaster into
disrepute and thus cast a reflection
upon the present administration.
Approaching the purpose OF this con-
duct and smarting under the intended
affront thus given. it is admitted
that the postmaster made use OF part
OF the language as claimed. IL is
also claimed that during the first
months incumbency of Mr.. McEniry
there was shortage of $50. and
that it is also claimed that the plain
tilt as stamp clerk had the sale of
stamps, envelopes and postal cards.
that subsequently the manner of dis
posing OF the stamps has been
changed and since the first month the
accounts have balanced.
The Testimony.
The plaintiff was the first witness
called. He testified to the various
duties he had to perform and the i'm
portance of his position. He re-
signed his place Sept. Is. 1894.
in the evening at o'clock, without
previous notice, and upon so doing
the defendant made use OF the
language alleged. That the charges
made were false. Upon cross emam-
ination he admitted he had been
thinking of leaving the Office for a
month before he did because, as he
claimed. Mr.. McEniry's conduct
toward him was such that his stay
in the office was made uncomfortable.
Charles v. johnson, for over ten
years mailing clerk in the postoilice.
corroborated the plaintiff a. to i
part of the language used by Mr..
McEniry toward the plaintiff. and
also testified to a remark of the same
general tenor made after the plaintiff
had been elected from the post
office.
The cross-examination of the wit
ness, johnson. was completed this
morning. and was directed mainly to
contrast between the conduct of the
witness in giving a months notice of
his quitting the postofiice. and that
of the.plaintiff. who quit without pre-
vious notice. Also to the claimed
shortage in the accounts of the office
and conversations had with the post
master relative thereto. He also
stated that the postmaster. himself.
Daniel Gould, Mr.. Grantz and An
drew DOrman, were the oDly ones
who had any considerable to do with
the money from the sale of stamps or
the handling of the money generally.
The plaintiff contented himself with
the testimony of himself and the
mailing clerk.
The Defense
The defense then put Adolph
Berger. a substitute carrier. upon
the stand. He received his appoint
ment on Aug. IA, 1894. He was in
the office at the time the alleged
slanderous words were spoken. and
substantially corrobora;ed the other
witnesses as to what they were. He
denied having handled any OF the
money of the office except perhaps
thirty cents. On cross-examination
he admitted that the carriers had
free access to the office, but denied
that they had access to the stamp
drawer.
Andrew porman. assistant mail
ing clerk in the office ut the time OF
the occurrence. testified to what the
duties of the various employees of the
Office were. and that there were five
employees who by right handled any
of the money. On cross eXam!na
ton he stated that any If the car
riers had access to the stamp drawer
and could take out such stamps as
they wanted; also had access to all
parts of the office: were not allowed
in the vault where the stamps were
kept, but might occasionally go in
there.
Charles V. johnson was then in
troduced on behalf of the defendant
and corroborated Dorman as to the
duties of the employees and their
accesA to the stamp drawer. All