The herald., 1896-03-12
Lowry Case Closed and Argu-
ments Being Made
A FRIVOLOUS PREACHER
Who Is Indicted BY the Grand Jury
for Bigamy
Technical but Important Testimony Being
Given In the citv's Condemnation Suit.
A Spanish Consul Sued


with the same class of onlookers that were
present ON the day previous.
As the day advanced and the defense put
In its testimony-or rather attempted to,
for it's most important line of testimony
was ruled out on the objections of the
prosecution-the comments of those who
have had a more or less intimate acquaint-
ance with the inward working of the county
clerks office during the Ward regime were
in marked contrast to those made by out
siders.
The latter thought tina. Lowry would
have Jared better if ne had not shown a
disposition to attempt to clear himself by
shouldering the burden onto Mr.. Ward. To
the uninitiated onlooker it did seem as if
Lowry had chosen to make a Samsoaian
defense, and without full assurance of vim
dicating himself had determined to bury
others-and probably more than one-in
common ruin.
The supposedly wise ones, however, sage
ly remarked that to aptly describe the sit
uation one had to drop, like the immortal
Silas Wegg, into poetry:
''Honor in dishonor rooted stands
Lowry, they contended, was obediently
subservient to his chief. He himself stated
on the witness stand that he would
keep entries from off the record if his su-
perior told him to do so. With the finan-
cial affairs of the Office in a chaotic
condition, he assisted the chief of the office
in juggling its affairs, and in SO doing laid
himself open to the trouble that has since
overwhelmed him. That Ward should
have been permitted to make good large
shortage while Lowry had been bounded
down did not strike this contingent as
being in consonance with fsirness or, in
deed, with good morals, and hard term,
even though a legal one, was applied to
the former way OF squaring debt.
When court convened at 10 o'clock the
defendant resumed his seat on the witness
stand, and on further cross-examination
December he had the conversation with
Ward about the shortage.
"But some of the warrants were drawn
in October. Why had they not been en-
tered ups the district attorney inquired.
The money was lying in the safe all the
time, ready to be entered up at any time,"
was the answer made.
But your not entering up on the fee
book was voluntary in that instance, wasn't
it?''
''Yes; knew certain payments had to
be made and made that provision
"How much of the 81 800 that you men,
toned as having turned over to Mr.. New
lin was for the reimbursement of the fee
fund:''
"a portion of it; the amount | don't re.
member
Upon redirect examination witness
stated that during October and November
Ward was absent most of the time from
the Off e, engaged in politics. and the of.
flee was almost exclusively in his CHARGE
n a liaiI thof
he had ever been on intimate terms with
Mr.. Woodbury., deputy clerk of the SUI
preme court, who had testified that the de-
fendant had confessed to him that he had
made away with $l354. He denied ,hat
he had ever been associated i'll any office
with him, or had ever made him his conf.
dant.
GooDLy ASSORTMENT OF DEAD MONEY
7. II. Ward was recalled and made their
witness by the defense. He stated that
while filling the office of county clerk he
had county and also private moneys on de.
post i'll the First National and Los Ange-
les banks. Attorney Meserve then pro-
ceeded to submit to witness certain checks
upon which the prosecution entered most
emphatic protest. The court. however, al
lowed them to be admitted for purposes of
Identification.
Judge McComas again objected when
beiug put in for declaration only and that
Ii the defense saw fit they could file copy
of the declaration of independence for such
purpose.
In attempting to introduce these checks
the defense sought TO disprove Ward 4
statement that the shortage handed down
in the Office had been made by Frank
flaming, but that on the other hand the
Indebtedness of $4,000 had been contract
ed by Ward himself as the checks, which
aggregated almost the entire amount of
the shortage, showed. If successful in
this. the story OF the defendant regarding
the omission to enter up on the fee book
moneys received would appear reasonable,
as such moneys would be required to pay
the various trust funds wherein the short
age existed.
"When you went out on January 1885,
how much did you owe the cash drawer?''
Queried Attorney Meserve.
This question again brought Judge Nc
Comas to his feet to object. He commended
that the charge against the defendant is
one of embezzllng specific amounts. aggre-
eating S1354. and nothing else is charged
against the defendant. Meserve denied
that specific amounts were charged. When
the matter had first come up on demurrer
to the indictment by the defendant, the
district attorney urged that specific
amounts were not charged. and they will
not be confined to specific amounts. Only
three warrants had been show n. but if the
prosecution show anything more. counsel
argued that they would be glad to do so
and under the Indictment. "When Ward
went out" continued counsel, '.he owed
the cash drawer $500 which did not appear
on the fee book and yet which was handed
t. Mr.. Varcoe, Mr.. Newln's deputy, by Mr..
Lowrey. If the defense can show this it
absolutely proves our contention that this
$500 handed over was part of the $l354.''
COUNSEL EXCHANGE CHUNKS OF WISDOM
Things seemed to be getting mixed, and
the warning given by the defense on Tues
day that even the court failed to appreciate
the dangerous ground being uncovered
seemed as if about to be fulfilled Judge
McComas again argued that any question
OF Ward 8 Indebtedness to the cash drawer
was immaterial and irrelevant.
The court didn't think the people ought
TO be limited as to time, Dut Attorney
Meserve reminded his honor that on the
original indictment the offense was charged
to have been committed between certain
dates, but when amended to suit the OBJ
lection OF defense. and also the ruling OF
the court. specific time was mentioned
and the prosecution was bound to prove
their contention along the line they had
selected.
The court overruled the objection and
the witness answered that as a matter of
fact he didn't owe tn. cash drawer any.
thing; that when he went north in Uecem-
Der Lowry told him he had plenty of
money.
"Hcw much money were you owing the
Office for money drawn from the cash
drawer? was the next question