Omaha daily bee., 1897-06-17
Witnesses for the Defense Give Strong
Testimony for State,
is KNOCKING OUT THEORIES
Books Show the Ex-State Trsasurer's
Account Was 0verdrawn.
MONEY DRAWN AND STATE NOT CREDITED
Records of the once Fail to show
of the Manipulation of the
Proceeds of IL $4,000
warrant.

Although the BARLEY trial is proceeding
very slowly. every inch of ground is being
hotly contested by both sides The most
convincing evidence against the defendant
which has been developed during the trial
has been drawn from witnesses called by the
defense. 1t Is true that they the same
witnesses who were called by the state.
but the line OF examination adopted by the
defense simply serves to open the way for
tho introduction of evidence by the state
cross examination which refutes the theories
advanced by the defense. AS each point in
the defense is developed the state promptly
knocks it out and almost every theory indi-
Gated by the line OF defense has been COM
pletely refuted sCon made.
One theory of the defense has been that
BARLEY checked back into the state funds
a portion of the amount realized from the
sale of the warrant and check for $4,000
was introduced in support of this theory,
but the state promptly showed that the pro-
ceeds of the warrant hsd all been checked
out of his personal account long before the
$4,000 in question was put into the state
funds and the state furnished a complete
surprise to the defense by showing that this
particular $4,000 was put into the state
funds from Bartleys private account as a
out of the state funds two months before,
this whole transaction occurring year
after the transactions surrounding the war;
rant in question
1t was also shown that the books of the
treasurers office do not show any record
whatever of the manipulation OF this $50,O0O
of the states money and 1t was brought opt
clearly that this transaction has no con
nection with the conversion of the proceeds
of the warrant.
ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER.
When court convened yesterday morning
the defense continued the direct ex-
animation of e. Il. BaIch, assistant
cashier of the Omaha National bank,
night the line OF questions being designed
to support the theory of the defense that
BARLEY checked out of his personal account
in the Omaha National into other banks
where the money was us2d for taking up war
| rants. The state objected to this line of
testimony for the reason that these banks
into which the money was checked were not
state repositories and hence II could make no
difference whether BARLEY checked 1t into
these banks or directly into his pocket.
Judge Baker ruled that If the defense could
show that the money was actually used FOR
the state it was entitled to do so
The witness then testified regarding the
entries in the bank ledsers, showing Bart
ley's personal account which had been In
troduced in evidence by the state. He said
the entries Cook, cashier" showing checks
Of large amounts drawn to that individual,
indicated that the amounts named had been
transferred to the First National bank OF
Lincoln of which the payee was assistant
cashier He also stated that the entries
Brown. cashier" referred to E. e. Brown,
cashier of the same bank showing that the
amounts named had been transferred 10 that
bank.
In cross-examinstion the witness was asked
by the attorney general if The $780, called
for by the check identified yesterday by eX-
| Fr. tlDtt
mailed by him to the Omaha National. trans
terring the amount to the general fund,
which check dated June 4. 1896. and
signed by BARLEY individually, was not paid
out of the money of the permanent school
fund of the state
The witness said he did not know any,
thing about the permanent school fund, SO
far as the Omaha National was concerned.
"Then for ali you Enow this money IN
Bartey's personal account might have been
part of the permanent school fund?' asked
the attorney general.
at might have been any kind of money;
don't know anything about it, replied the
witness.
"Is it not fact that at the time this
check was received by the Omaha National
bank, June S, 1886 the $50 ,lOl.75 received
from the sale of the warrant had been
checked out of the personal account OF Mr..
Bartey?' asked Mr.. Smyth
BARTLEY'S ACCOUNT OVERDRAWN.
! Mr. Mahoney objected strongly to this line
of questioning, and a long argument fol-
| lowed, the question finally being admitted.
| Tho witness said he could not tell and he
| was then asked to consult the books and dis
close the result of such examination.
| After doing so, he was asked what the
| entry of balance in red ink, under date OF
April "a, 1896, in Bartley's personal account
| indicated.
The defense objected to this question and
| 1t was withdrawn, the witness then being
asked II it was not fact that on April
| "a, 1896, two months before the check in
| question was drawn, BARLEY did not have
| a cent in his account but YVES overlrawn?
The defense also objected to this question
| and over half an hour was spent in argu-
| ing the admissibility OF this line of evidence.
| He was finally allowed to answer, and
| stated that such was the fact.
The defense then undertook 10 show by
| Mr.. Balch that further deposits were made
| in Bartley's personal account before the
| check in question was presented for pay
| meat, but the questions were ruled out as
| being immateIial, for the reason that 1t was
| evident that If the check was paid there
| must have been money there TO rleet II, but
| this could have no bearing on the fact that
| the proceeds of the warrant had been checked
| out previously
| Ex-Deputy Treasurer Bartlett was recalled
| by the state for further croes-eXamnation
| on the check for $50 900, dated June 4 1896,
| payable to j. s. Bartley treasurer out OF
! Bartleys personal account and signed ~.
| S. Barley" This check was identified Tues
| day by the witness as having been mailed
| by him to the Omaha National and had been
| Identified by Witness Balch as having been
| credited to the general fun1 Of the state
| and taken from Bartley's personal account.
Bartlett was asked il the general fund ac-
| count In the treasurers office had been cred
| tied with the amount of this check, and he
! replied that II did not show such credit.
Mr. Mahoney argued against the admission
! OF such testimony, saying that so long as
| the banks books showed the credit II was
| not necessary for the books In the treasurer's
| Office to show IT,, as the money put into the
] state funds from Bartley's private funds were
not funds for which BARLEY was accountable
| TO the state.
The county attorney argued that II this
money vas not shown in the treasurer's of
| fee IL indicated that the money was IN
| tended TO be drawn out again and the stalS