Omaha daily bee., 1897-06-17

funds not increased by the process, the
whole transaction being mere subterfuge
and not intended as a legitimate transfer
OF funds.
Attorney Whedon argued that the money
might have been deposited by BARLEY from
his own private funds in order to meet the
payment of warrant Jf the state which
was then due. He said the bookkeeper,
Colonel Afford, might have died on that day
and this might account for the entry not
being made.
STATE NOT CREDITED.
The court overuled the objection and the
witness was asked why he did not credit the
general fund with the amount of this check
He replied that he thought, 1T is on there
somewhere; it should be-
He was then asked If 1t was not fact that
the check was issued for the purpose OF
drawing out of the Omaha National bank
900 to be paid to the First National Of
Lincoln and that the general fund Of the
state never received any credit for the
amount. He replied that such was the fact
The witness was then shown a check dated
April 80. 1896 for $50 600, payable to the
First Ntional of Lincoln, drawn on state
funds in the Omaha National and he denti-
fed it as being the check for the repayment
OF which the check first mentioned had been
drawn.
The introduction of this last mentioned
check caused quite furore on the part OF
the defense and the attorneys protested
this line. 1t was surprise which the state
had been holding in reserve and was q COM
plete refutation of the theory presented by
the defense that BARLEY had used his pri-
yate funds to protect the credit Of the state,
the check showing that the whole process
had been manipulation of state funds in
Bartley's interest without any record being
made OF any part of the tranaction In the
treasurer's office.
After examining the last check, the wit
ness stated that credit OF the $4,000 COW
cred by the check of June had not been
entered In the general fund on the treas
urers books because the che"S Of that date
was drawn on the general fund by BARLEY
and there was no stub In the office from
which to check ii and make the entry, so
tho witness left both checks out of the
record.
He said the check of June 4 was simply a
repayment OF the amount drawn out by the
check Of April 30. The attorney general re-
marked that this showed that instead of the
check OF June being a generous donation
to the state by the defendant the check of
April so clearly showed that the first one
was simply repayment of state funds
drawn out over a month before.
close consultation was held by BARLEY
and his attorney after the damaging dis
closures OF the defendants former deputy,
and the usual noon adjournment was taken
before the defense had examined the witness
further.
STILL WORKING ON THAT CHECK
The redirect examination OF ex-Deputy
Treasurer Bartlett was commenced by the de-
fense at the opening OF the afternoon ses-
sion yesterday and 1t was attempted to be
shown that at the date of the second check
April 80, 1896, BARLEY had deposit as state
treasurer in the First National bank OF Lin
coin, and that the $4,000 drawn out OF the
state funds in the Omaha National and
transferred to the First National at Lincoln
had been used for state purposes.
The state opposed any such showing un-
less 1t was first shown that the First Ma
tional at Lincoln was a state depository al
that time, claiming that BARLEY had nc
right to check the money out Of a state de
pository and into a private bank, as that
act was embezzlement under the rule laid
down by the supreme court in the Hill case
and II 1t proved anything it simply proved
that BARLEY had embezzled more than he
was charged with.
Mr. Mahoney said he purposed to show
that the money which was checked into the
Lincoln bank was used to pay state ohliga
tions and that in addition to the amount
represented by this check the state had alsC
had the use OF 1000 of Bartley's private
funds. He claimed that there was no ad
verse holding shown and there had been nc
criminal intent.
The county attorney challenged the de