The San Francisco call., 1897-10-08

of his salary during the months he had
not worked The five checks were each for
about $50, and these, Whitehu'st testi-
fed, he had never seen, and positively
swore that he had not received the money
for which they called.
On cross-exa mlnatIon Gavin McNab
pressed the witness with questions as to
whether he did not know that some one
else was to receive his salary during his
absence. An objection to these gus tions
brought the explanation from the defense
that IL proposed to prove that the money
from the checks went to pay Norton, who
was performing the duties of Whitehurst.
The prosecution contends that at this
time Norton was still rece wing his salary
as clerk, and that the Collector got the
cashiers salary.
II. X. Robin, a storekeeper and gauger
in the employ of the Government since
1894, testified that be never had claim
for anything but his salary. He knew
nothing of a check for $25 90 showa him,
which was made payable to him "or
bearer, o. NJ. w" and had never received
the check or the money. By notation
on the margin of the check 1t was shown
TO have been drawn for rent. Robin
swore that he had never had any lain
for rent. He said that there was balance
of SS due him on salary. which he had
never received. The Assistant District
Attorney produced a check drawn In his
favor for IS. This was indorsed by w. II.
DilIard, and the witness had never seen 1t
nor the money.
Deputy Collector Thomas Chandler was
shown a check for $12 80, drawn i'll his fa-
vor and indorsed by Dillard. He testified
that he had not received the money on
the check nor had he seen it before. He
had never authorized billiard to cash
checks for him, and all those he had re-
ceived for his salary had been indorsed
either by himself or his son.
After each of the above witnesses
Thomas E. Burns the cashier of the Sub
Trea-ury. was called 10 identify the
checks. He testified that they were all
signed by o. NJ. Welburn, and that each
one of them had ueen cashed. The body
of the rent check, payable TO Robin, he
said, had been written by Louis Loupe
and Captain J. E. Youngberg. On cross
examination he said that he was familiar
with the signatures of the employees of
the Revenue Office. He had seen docu-
ments TO which Diliard had signed the
name of Welburn and thought that these
signatures were not so similar but that
they could be easily distinguished.
The first witness at the morning session
of the court was William Cunning CHAM,
receiving teller OF the Bank of California.
He produced some deposit-slips, which
showed that checks on the Sub-Treasury
payable TO Thomas +. Sinnott had been
deposited to the personal account OF y. Nj.
Welburn. These had all been indorsed
by Sinnott, and were for the full amount
OF the salary. Sinnott testified that he
had only received wo-thirds of a gauger' $
salary, and that by money order instead
OF check. This was corroborated by c. D.
Jackson of the Postoffice Department,
who swore that the Collector had remit
ted various amounts to the gauger by
money order. His statement as to the
amounts agreed with those made by SIM
mott.
The colored messenger of the office, w.
H. billiard, was recalled to the stand and
| testified That at the direction of his su-
! perior he had taken the checks made pay
BILE to Sinnott or bearer, and which the
gauger had not Endorsed, nad them
| cashed at the Sub Treasury and turned
the money over to the defendant.