The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1896-03-11
Frank L0wrey Goes on the Stand
in His Own Defense
AN EXPOSURE THREATENED
Some Close Questions and the Answers
They ELECTED
The City's Condemnation Suit Goes Over for
. Observation-Disclosures 1atters Around
the Different Court Rooms

The people-the great people-now as OF
old, are constantly demanding a new SEN
sation or excitement to give a FLIP to the
jaded brain.
THE Lowrey trial, now going on in de.
partment one of the superior court, is serv.
ing q purpose in this direction. putting
aside altogether any consideration of the
ends of justice sought to be subserved by
the legal proceeding
In the morning yesterday the testimony
was largely of routine character, but on
lockers kept dropping in until. in the after
noon, when dramatic climax was reached,
the court room was filled with motley
throng of county officials, sure enough poll
ticians and of the "would-be" order, and a
small representation from the ranks of the
'.'orny 'anded sons of toll"
At one time during the afternoon District
Attorney Donnell and Judge McComas.
who are prosecuting the case, were rein
forced by Judge Horton and Mr.. II. E.
Storrs, the latter the foreman of the grand
jury. The appearance of the latter could
hardly be accepted as good omen from the
standpoint of the prosecution, for hereto
. fore it has only needed defendant to fall
under the ban of the grand jury to 60 free,
either by boring holes in the indictment or
BY direct appeal to the jury.
THE DEFENDANTS MASCOT
The side of the defense was reinforced
by the appearance of Mrs, Lowrey, wife of
the accused, with tiny little girl of about
four summers, who proceeded to make
herself very much at home in the court
room. Slipping from her mothers knee
she crept under the judges bench, and.
unawed by the majesty OF the law there
enthroned, displayed strong inclination
TO play bo.peep with the witness seated
upon the stand from behind its sacred
shelves. The little tots inclination to be
frolicsome occasioned her removal and
also that of her mother
The first witness put upon the stand in
the morning WAS t. III. Ward. ex-county
clerk. The slow process Of identifying the
several items in the fee b ook of the county
clerks Office for which warrants were
drawn in 1894 ultimated in the three war
rants upon which the money was paid by
the county treasurer. alleged to have been
embezzled by the defendant. being identi-
fed. These warrants were for the amounts
and paid on the dates as fellows:
October 10. 1894 800 rs
November 9, 1924. .................... $40 90
November ~, lS94.... ...,....... ..... 50 s.
The witness explained the meaning of
"Refund," under which heading all the
items, which aggregated the above
amounts, as being moneys paid ont from
the office for miscellaneous items for
which credit could not he Obtained. These
purchases would be paid out of the fees
received and a claim against the county
nut in with the board or supervisors. for
which a warrant would be drawn. and,
when cashed, the money would be entered
in the fee book and replaced in the drawer
from whence it was in the first place taken.
THE DEPUTIES HAD FREE HAND
Under eros DISCRIMINATION the witness eX-
planned that the other deputies. as well as
Mr.. Lowrey, were privileged to pay out
claims as indicated by hin and, indeed, a
deputy receiving or paying out money
might not always be the one who entered
1t up. For Instance. deputy might call
out TO another to enter up such and such
an amount and it would be done. The
moneys paid into the fee fund Is not kept
separate, except on the books, but is put
either in the safe or on deposit in a gener-
al amount to the credit of the county clerk.
"Then." inquired Attorney Meserve. "it
was the practice to pay out moneys before
being passed upon by the Office and the
deputies took chances of getting it back
A neat way # getting around the law"
I'VE had authority. verbal authority
things. such as stamps. ballot papers and
boxes, registration papers, etc, could not
be obtained in any other way"
$50 it came back to you and the board
of SUPERVISORS were Juggling with the law"
Objection was taken to counsel's remark,
when he explained that he used the term
Juggling" without intending any reflec-
ton. but just to Indicate the mode of
manipulating the moneys spoken of.
Charles w. Bell. acting clerk to the
board of supervisors, showed by the record
that the claims upon which the warrants
introduced had been drawn. had been al
lowed by the board. City Auditor BickneIl
testified from the records of his office that
the warrants had been drawn, and the
city treasurer identified the warrants
as having been paid out of his office. All
these officials, however. confessed that the
only knowledge they possessed was not
personal, but Judging only from the record
ID. Mason, deputy county treasurer, was the
only one, who pretended TO any personal
knowledge. He remembered Mr.. Lowrey
coming to the Office to have a warrant
cashed, but he could not say which warrant
it was. and Mr.. Lowrey had cashed others
besides those put in evidence.
LEGAL BATTERIES UNMAsKED
I. H. Ward. being recalled, entered into
details regarding the transactions sur
rounding the time when the embezzlement
is said to have taken place. The previous
testimony had largely been technical and
preliminary to the main points of the case.
The district attorney began the portion of
the examination by asking the witness:
"l'li ask you at what time you found out
that money had been drawn out on war.
rants, and had not been placed back in the
fee fund.-
my attention was drawn to it by the
grand Jury last year.
'And did you then make an examination
of the books to see if it was SOP
II did, and found the books did not show
such money had been refunded
Estate whether. when you made the dis
covery, you had a conversation with the de-
PENDANT regarding the sum-"
"Yes, sir, did; asked him if the MONEY
had not been paid into the county treas
urer. He answered that it had not.,'
"Dld you ask him il he had paid it into
the fee fund?''
II don't remember if did or not.''
'Did you ask him what he did with the
money?''
Il don't remember. He said he had re-
ceived it and thought knew of the short
age. told him did not.''
Attorney Meserve cross-examined the
witness, and in the light of the questions
asked, as we'll as testimony later yiven for
the defense. the answers given are i'm
portant as bringing Mr.. Ward into direct
conflict with other and outside, independent
testimony.
"You remember a conversation you had
in the Office OF the supreme court, when
the defendant and Mr.. Seaver were pres
ent, do you not" was the first question
asked.
sir :;