The herald., 1897-06-18
I. II. WARD ON THE STAND
COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE METH
DDS BEING EXPLOITED
A Damage Suit for $25OO-C. A. Peer
Gets Free Through a Technical
ity of Law-Notes

This is the case wherein complication:
were injected into the trial by reason
of the confessed laxity of administration
prevailing in the county clerks office a
the time the crime charged against
Lowry was committed.
AS chief deputy under T. H. WARD
the defendant carried along the detail
work, and it is claimed, took advan
tage of his position to embezzle certain
of the county moneys. The specific
charge against him. and for which he is
again brought to trial, is the embezzle-
ment of s1354 belonging to the county
The case was tried in department one
before Judge Smith and jury. but it
resulted in a hung jury, one man persis-
tent in his belief refusing to swing into
line with the other eleven.
This time the case is being tried be-
fore Judge Shaw. Deputy District At
torney McComas is prosecuting and E.
A. Meserve and W. J. Variel are again
representing the interests of Lowry.
The morning was taken up in obtain
ing a jury, but by 1880 the panel was
full, the following gentlemen being
sworn to try the case: ]. w. Eyestone.
j. o. Lamb. c. o. Monroe. John thinner
man. E. Munsey, G. S. Watson. A. Os-
goodby, H. @. Blaisdell. R. R. Smith, A.
Hinckly, ]. r. McManus and ]. D.
Young.
Several of the county officials were
put upon the witness stand for the pur-
pose merely of making the technical
points regarding documents, etc, and
then T. H. Ward was put forward by
the prosecution. Mr. Ward is at present
clerk of the supreme court of the state,
but was clerk Of Los Angeles county a,
the time the offense charged was COM
mitted. Both he and the defendant in
the case have very many friends in Los
Angeles, and for that reason, as well
as on its merits, the trial is of interest
SEEKING ELUSIVE ITEMS
Mr.. Ward began his testimony by
stating that he held office as county clerk
from the first Monday in January, 1893
to the first Monday in January, 1895
He was referred to the fee book at that
time in use in the county clerks office
by Mr.. McComas, and identified as in
the handwriting of the defendant, az
entry under date of September 25. 1894
1OI IcluIu SldUlpS, %. lH6 Wlln6SS
in answer to the interrogatory, stated
that the entry meant that that money
had been taken from out of the moneys
received as fees and would have to be
paid back. 1t was the custom of the
office, when miscellaneous articles were
needed for which the county had not
credit. that payment should be made out
of the fee money. At the end of the
month a statement of these refund
moneys" would be made out and filed
with the supervisors. Upon being al
lowed, warrants would be drawn upon
the auditor and upon being cashed by
the treasurer the money would be put
back to the fee fund
Pursuing his investigation. the wit
ness attention was drawn to another
entry under date of October 2, 1894. for
refund stamped envelopes, express
age. $11210." which he also identified as
being in the handwriting Of the defend
ant. On October II, another amount for
$I12.25 OF refund stamp money was
found, and other miscellaneous amounts
OF similar character, aggre eating $3.50 70,
entered up under various dates A Sec
ond series of entries of similar nature.
and aggregating $310.10, We're tedlously
gone through and each one identified.
According to the amounts identified by
the witness, statements alleged to have
been made out by the defendant and
upon which warrants were issued and
the money obtained upon them appro-
priated by Frank Lowry, did not tally
The first statement footed up $3.50. 70.
while the amounts called off totaIed
$564.75, and in the second statement. in
stead of the amounts totaling $31O. 10 TO
correspond with it, total was obtained
of s312.75. Mr. McComas discovered
that he had had the witness to identify
couple of entries too many, and so these
were blocked out. Another series of
entries, aggregating $4S5S5. were gone
over, and the statement approved by the
poard OF supervisors, and upon which
warrants were issued, put in evidence.
The witness outlined the duties Of the
defendant while acting as chief deputy,
and stated that the several amounts.
when withdrawn from the county treas
urer, ought to have been returned to the
lee fund. Witness proceeded to state
that all entries under the heading of re-
funds really did not go back into the
fund and he was about to distinguish h
between the two when the objection of
the defense was sustained. M. Ward
stated that the three aggregated
amounts had not, to the best of his
knowledge, been deposited in the cash
of the county clerks office, or entered
up in the fee book.
THE SHORTAGE LOOMS UP
On cross examination by Mr. Meserye
the witness stated that he was acuuaint-
ed with the detailed workings of his of
flee while he held the office of county
clerk.
''Is it not a fact you turned over
the office to Mr.. Lowry and the other
deputies?"
mo, sir, it is not"
Being reminded of his answer made
at the last trial to the same question.
witness was about to qualify his answer
when McComas interrupted counsel ia
say that he thought he would finish his
direct examination of Mr. Ward al
once. He had intended to call him
again later, but if counsel would excuse
him he would proceed and end with Mr.
Ward
Who, If any one, made good to the
county this money!" inquired Mr.. Nc
Comas.
The court thought Mr.. McComas was
assuming too much in assuming thai
there was a shortage, for so far it ha6
not been shown. Objection sustained