The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-14
THE WRONG LAW
Both Attorneys Were Satisfied With
Rather Obsolete Authorities

II had singular experience several years
ago in court trial in New York. remarked
a treasury official the other day, land It
goes to show how people get things mixed.
The particular case was that OF SUIT
brought by the government to secure from
the bondsmen of an army officer the
amount that he was short in his financial
accounts. The case was on trial for several
days, and was sent there with the records
from the auditors office the vouchers OF
the officer, and other official papers ON
which the suit was based. The army reg
ulations in regard to the duties of disburs-
ing officers played prominent part in the
proceedings, as may be imagined, and the
particular regulations as to the duties Of
the officer concerned were read several
times during each day of the trial. Though
l was and am familiar with the various par
agraphs relating to disbursing officers, I
did not pay much attention to the different
paragraphs as they were read, supposng,
of course, that they were all right. just
as the government was closing its case this
district attorney read a paragraph, saying
that on it he would ask verdict for the
government. 1t struck me that there was
something wrong in the para graph; that It
contained more words and went into moro
detail than the paragraph that l was acc
customed to hear read or had read myself
often.
the court, had announced a brief recess, at
the conclusion of which the arguments OF
the district attorney and the counsel for
the defense were to be heard AS the court
room cleared out l stepped over to the dis.
trict attorneys table and took look at
the army regulations that he had so free
quently read, and upon which he had de-
pended so much for his verdict.
lone look satisfied me as to why their
reading had Jared me. They were army
regulations all right, but they were the
army regulations for the use of the army
of the Confederate states of America 1t
appeared that the district attorney had
sent one of his clerks to the office library
for copy of the army regulations, and the
clerk brought the first book he saw bearing
that title, taking 1t for granted, of course,
that the volume was the one he wanted.
Strange as it may seem, both the district
attorney and the counsel for the defense
had quoted from the book during the en-
tire trial, and neither of them had even
looked as to the authority for the publica-
ton of the same. 1 quietly picked up the
book and went back to the district attor-
neys office with it. Upon a search I found
the army regulations of 1885, signed by the
then secretary of war. Upon comparison
of the paragraphs in relation to disbursing
officers l found that the language was
practically the same, the confederate regu-
lations having been copied from the regu-
lations in use in the army for many years
prior to the war. In his argument the dis
trct attorney used the regulations of the
United States army, and upon them secured
the verdict he desired. Ii would have been
rather rough had he secured verdict on
the regulations of the confederate army.
though l believe the error would not have
been discovered had L not more from curl
osity than anything else, glanced at the
volume which had been used. and which,
as l say, covered the same ground practi.
cally and used different words in doing so.f
washington Star.