The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1896-03-11

check. He didn't know whether SUISSE
quent to December 23 or October 10 large
amounts had been paid out in the course of
business in the office.
Don't you know that Mr.. Lowrey paid
out about $4,000 on demands properly pre-
sented, other than that handed over to Mr..
Newlin?" was asked.
HE might have done so." was the reply,
the witness adding, II wasn't there much
at that time
1.-The only thing upon which you base
your claim that Mr.. Lowrey did not turn
the money in is it's absence from the fee
book and Mr.. Lowrey's own remarks"
GHOSTS BONES BEGIN TO RATTLE
"Yes, sir. didn't know until the grand
jury told me.'
rs it not fact that before Mr.. Lowrey
became chief deputy there was shortage
in the office which was handed DOM to
the defendant?''
"Yes, sir, there had been such short
age"
"And that was very much larger
amount than $l354?"
"HeS. sir.''
New matter had been limited at by Attor-
ney Meserve. and before permitting wit
ness to retire Major Donnell put questions
to the witness on recross examination
tending to explain it. This was done over
opposing coinsel's objection. and it was
the first decided indication of the broaden
ing out of the case.
"Tell the jury" said the district attor-
ney. ''the amount of that shortage"
"There was a shortage of about SSOOO."
"How did it occur, and by whom?"
ut was through my previous chief dep
uty. F. Tanning. now dead"
"Has it been made good. and by
whom?'
II have paid $1,000 myself. OF the re-
manning 5 300 about 500 has been paid
by me, and there is still 5000 unpaid"
Witness gave a recapitulation of his
conversations with defendan. when the
question how to raise money was dis
cussed. Witness got $4,000 by giving his
note and defendant went on the note with
him. The balance of the shortage witness
paid himself with the assistance OF friends.
''Did you talk about any other deficit in
the office?"
Defense objected strenuously, when
Judge McComas fired another hot shot into
the opposition camp.
well be able he remarked, "to show
other embellishments in the office, and the
superior court in 10Y or los Cal. has sus-
tanned your honor in permitting testimony
of other embezzlenents to show guilty
knowledge
when the grand jury told me,'' said
witness, II saw defendant and he said he
thought knew about it. l told him I'd
go and see the county expert, Mrs. Fowler.
books for October and November, and
therefore had not discovered the shortage.
Mr.. Lowrey told me he would try to get
some money for me to make the deficit
good, and he thought he could get $500
from the east"
the examination by the prosecution, as
tending to open matter the court even did
not appreciate.
BONE ExPLODES
Upon the witness passing back to the
tender merces of the defense for still
further examination the trial of the case
was very much enlivened by sensational
offer made by Attorney Meserve. He first
asked the witness question to which the
latter replied that the shortage of $4,000
came down from Frank Tanning. The
question was then put:
How much money did you use in your
probate Capacity as apart from county
clerk?''
sci, upon which Attorney Meserve stood
mp and offered to prove that subsequent to
Fanning's death Mr.. Ward used nearly
$4,000 in his private business. Counsel
stated he had the checks in his pocket at
that moment, showing to whom the moneys
were paid and witnesses in court were pre-
pared to go on the stand and snow how the
$4,000 shortage originated. 1.-THE shortage
was not Mr.. Fanning's," hotly contended
counsel, land the different accounts Tot
being kept distinct, if any shortage of
1884 exists it was not owing to the de-
PENDANT"
The court sustained the objection as such
evidence opened up new and immaterial
matter and the witness was retired.
Frank ii. Lee. an expert bookkeeper, tes-
titled to having been engaged by the grand
jury. He had examined the books care
fully and failed to find record Of the
1881.
F. c. Woodbury., deputy clerk of the
supreme court, gave some interesting testi-
mony regarding the conversation pre-
viously alluded to. He stated that Lowrey
came TO his Office and said he expected to
De Indicted by the grand jury, and that he
had got away with from $500 to 81 400.
He furnished a telegraph blank and Lowrey
sent message to a lady friend at st. Louis
who he thought would assist him.
At this point tine prosecution rested.
The first witness put forward by the de-
Tense was A. w. Seaver, who has been
deputy county clerk for seventeen years.
His account of the conversation in the
office ia the superior court when the short
age was discussed was directly opposed to
the evidence previously given.
"Mr. Ward stated said witness, "he
knew of the shortage, but didn't think it
was much. ! came to be there because
and | think the meeting was pre-arranged.
There was some talk about the fee book,
but l can't remember the exact words"
THE DEFENDANT TALKS
Mr.. Frank Lowrey. the defendant in the
case. next testified in his own behalf. He
stated he was born and had lived in Cali.
forna all his life. He had been county
recorder and deputy assessor in Plumas
county, and deputy county clark in this
county for about sevea years under Duns-
muir, Meredith and Ward. He com.
menced as copyist, then on the general
desk, then to department 4. for time in
department ,, and from there he had been
promoted to he chief deputy in December,
1891, by L. H. Ward. From June, 1894,
he had charge Of the cash, after Mrs.
Fowler left the office. The average cash
of the Office was about 5000 per month.
The other deputies had access to the cash,
but payments made were supposedly in
his name. There was from $500 to
$1,000 handed over to Mr.. Newlin.
Abiding to the three specific warrants
in dispute Attorney Meserve asked:
"Was entry made of them in the fee
book"
.No."
why"
II was so instructed by Mr.. Ward"
"Why?"
because If Mrs. Fowler discovered the
shortage. she being friend of his, would
give him time to make it good''
"When this money was received there
you had conversation with Ward?''