The herald., 1897-06-19

| 40.
That ended the testimony Of witness
and Mr.. McComas intimated that tina
was the case for the people.
Mr.. Meserve moved the court that tn,
jury be instructed to acquit the defend
ant, inasmuch as it had not been showr
that the s1S54 had not been returned t.
the county funds. The motion was de-
MED.
THE DEFENSE OPENS
Counsel for defense, preliminary t
opening it's case, asked Mr.. McComas i
he would stipulate that the indictment
upon which the defendant is being tried
is the second drawn by the grand jury
and in the same session, and upon ex-
actly the same evidence upon which the
first indictment had been drawn, and to
which demurrer had been sustained in
department five. The prosecution would
stipulate nothing, although this point,
being one of fact and not of law, was
conceded on the first trial.
H. E. Storrs, the old-time foreman of
the grand jury. being recalled for the de-
fense, stated an indictment was pre-
sented on October 81 1885, and on De-
cember II, 1895, a second one was pre-
sented.
The defense tried to show that the
second indictment was simply presented
without any further examination, but
the prosecution objected to every ques-
tion and these objections were sustained.
The court intimated that the point of
twice in jeopardy would be settled by
refer ring to the order of the court made
on the demurrer to the first indictment
But Mr.. Meserve did not desire to raise
this point until it was understood that
the same offense was chargedIin in each in
dictment, for If the court held two sep
arate offenses had been charged, the
plea of twice in jeopardy would not lie
c. l.. Logan. clerk of department ons,
being called, put in the minutes of de-
partment one. showing the ruling of the
court November 25. 1895. on the demur-
rer interposed in the case, and showing
that no order of the court was made to
the grand jury to take any further ac-
ton. The objection of the prosecution
to this being put in evidence, however
was sustained
AN OLD DEPUTY'S STORY
Harry G. Johnson. secretary of the
present board of education, stated that
he was deputy county clerk under T. H.
Ward.
You know the amount charged in the
indictment against Mr. Lowry" coun-
sci for the defense asked.
Il know his being charged with hav-
ing embezzled some s1354."
do you know If claims for the amount
were made on the board of supervisors ?"
Yes; 1 know claims were put in"
do you know when the claims were
made?"
mot long after certain papers were re-
ceived from the north, and they were re-
'unded to the fee book, and the claims
shortly after put in
Did you ever hear a conversation be-
tween Mr.. Ward and Mr. Lowry in ref
arence to the items not being entered on
the fee book after the money had been
Objection to the question was made on
the ground that no foundation had been
laid for an impeachment of Mr.. Wards
testimony, and it was sustained
I'm December. 1894, did you hear any
between Mr. Ward and Mr..
Lowry, in the county clerks office. re-
garding the sum of $1354, when Mr.. Ward
told Mr.. Lowry not to enter it on the fee
book?"
Yes. SIR
state what was said"
"A bill was sent from the north re-
garding election papers and I filed it
away. Mr.. Lowry asked Mr. Ward if
he should hold the money over as the
,und was low, and Mr.. Ward told him
% do so.''
and this order of Mr. Ward was after
he money came back from the super |
1isors?''
Yes, sir
Mr.. McComas wanted to know, on |
cross examination. if that was the only |
amount witness had heard Mr. Ward tell |
Mr. Lowry to withhold and the witness |
stated it was the only one he remember |
I'd. Consul was proceeding to tangle |
witness up on the amount. but the court |
lad kept tab on the finances of the case, |
cad off the sum as $40 to which Mr.. |
Johnson had referred
A. w. Seaver, deputy county clerk un- |
Ter the Ward administration, was the |
leXt witness. He stated that he had |
wo or three converse tions with Mr.. |
Ward and had one in the supreme court |
building when Ward and Lowry were |
present. At that time, he never prom
sed to raise money to help either Ward |
II Lowry.
Did you overhear. in the county |,
Jerks Office" asked Mr. Meserve, "a |
conversation between Mr.. Lowry and |
Mr.. Ward to the effect that the money |
eferred to was the same money Mr.. |
Ward had told Lowry to keep off the fee |
)ook?"
They We're talking about the 1884 |
hortage, and Mr. Ward said he didn't |
hink it was so large. We met at the !
upreme court to discuss the shortage. |
nd the S1354 shortage was the only one
knew about"
In that conversation was anything
aid about the money not having been
ntered on the fee book. in accordance |
With Mr.. Wards direction?''
There was some such conversa ton.
nut l can't remember the Details
WAS there anything said regarding
Ir. Ward having told Mr. Lowry not to
inter- it on the fee book?" inquired the
ourt.
Il couldn't swear there was"
The question being put in different |
orm, witness stated that they knew this /
money was the money referred to in that
onversation. The substance of Mr.. !
Wards remarks was that he knew of !
he shortage, but didn't think it was so
arge. The conversation was more with
egard to the amount than on the fact of |
is not having been entered on the fee