The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-05-07
Ex-INSPECToR NICHOLS
THAT THE SHORTAGE
AMOUNTED TO S3,o72.
Cunnington Gives Testimony For the
Government-Says Mcbride Adj
mitted to Him That He Was Short
In His Accounts $4,000 or So 900
-Cabell to Be Sentenced Today.


Inspector Nichols. who made the ex-
animation of the Salt Lake postoffice
was considerably weakened on cross
examination by Attorney Arthur
Brown.
AT the close of the session the de-
Tense moved to dismiss the case on ac-
count of insufficiency of evidence, and
Judge Marshall will rule on the motion
this morning.
William S. Walker, present assistant
postmaster, was the first witness eX-
amined. He explained the methods en-
ployed in conducting the business OF
the postoffice.
H. V. Meloy was recalled and testi-
fed as to receipts and disbursements of
the office from Dec. 81, 1896, to Jan. IA,
1897.
INSPECTOR NICHOLS.
Captain Nichols, formerly postoffice
inspector, took the stand for the prose-
cution. He testified that he had made
an examination of the accounts of the
Salt Lake postoffice on Jan. 13 and IA,
1897 He counted and checked the stock
and made a statement of the stock and
money on hand.
After the investigation he had a con-
versation with Frank NJ. Mcbride, who
walked home with him, and inquired as
TO the result of the examination. Wit
ness informed Mcbride in the presence
of Mr.. Barrett that there was a short
/ age amounting to about $4,000. Nc
| Bride stated that he knew he was short.
Witness asked defendant what became
! of the money, but he replied that he
didn't know.
Il told him there is no use saying he
| didn't know what became of the
money"
What did you say about him max
! i'm tya Sal
II suggested that ne notify his folks
/ by wire and ne said he would
What was said about the shortage
of Cunnington?"
Mcbride stated that Cunnington was
short"
Did you tell him about the short
age of Cunnington?'
Il told Mcbride that Cunnington de-
MED he was short
Witness testified that Cunnington &C
knowledged he was short 1868.
The crosS-eXamination was conducted
by Mr.. Brown, and the witness did not
respond to questions with clearness,
and appeared to be uncertain as to the
incidents connected with the examina-
ton of the accounts, which, together
with some contradictions, considerably
weakened his testimony.
He took a memoranda of different
kinds of stamps in the count, but could
not tell the itemized amounts since he
had destroyed the memoranda. The to-
tai stamps amounted to $S,S34.96.
Witness testified that he had con-
versation with Mcbride between II
midnight and o'clock in the morning
while working at the inspection. Nc
Bride came into the poStoffice and
asked the amount Of the shortage. Wit
ness replied that it was between $4,000
and $1,000. He swore out the complaint
by direction of the district attorney and
arrested Mcbride. The witness said
while he was in his custody he had a
conversation with him in the presence
of Mr.. Barrett, and the subject of the
shortage was brought up. Witness
asked defendant how it came about.
Mcbride said he knew of the short
age.
rs it not true" asked Mr.. Brown,
that he said 1 don't know anything
about it?'
No" the witness replied.
Did you not use the language There
is no use to say you don't know any,
thing about it?'
Eyes, after we left the postoffice. On
the way to the commissioners office 1
said, There is no use to tell me you
don't know what became of the money
and he replied, of course 1 know
Witness fixed the amount of shortage
shortage of Cunnington also.
When asked as to an interview with
Judge Mcbride, father of the defend
ant, as to whether or not he had
showed him the evidence he had
against Frank, witness had no positive
knowledge. Il may have told some
facts, or 1 may have detailed some evil
dence. 7 can't say whether l did or
didn't said witness. He was not GER
tain whether he showed Judge Mcbride !
the inspection.
Did he Judge McBride) ask you if
Frank made an admission to you of |
taking money!"
Il am not certain"
Did he call your attention to an ar
ticle in the Salt Lake Herald2'
IT won't be certain"
Did he ask if you were responsible
for it?"
Il don't recolIect."
after inspection, did not Mr.. Barrett
say that Frank did not make an ad-
Il have no recollection"
Did you tell the amount Frank was
sheriff"
Il have no distinct recollection. I may
have done so, and l may not"
when did you determine that the de-
PENDANT was short $3,072?'
After his arrest"
when you arrested him, had you
completed the reDort?'
II had determined there was a short
age"
MBRIDE KEPT THE ACCOUNTS.
Henry Reventisch, an employee in
the postal department, testified that
Mcbride kept the accounts, and Cum
nington was stamp clerk. Both Barrett
and Mcbride had keys to the vault,
which was opened only by them. Nc
Bride usually kept the accounts of the
stamp clerk, except when absent on ac-
count of sickness in his family. Both
Cunnington and he turned over the
money they received to Mcbride. Wit
ness had conversation with Mcbride
On Jan. Is. He said to him: Frank,
you are pretty badly short" He re-
Piled: Il know ] am short, but not ST.
100 or $780,
Clerk Williams, of the mailing depart
nent, testified that in the fall of 1886, !
ne saw the defendant open and enter
he vault at 2 o'clock in the morning.
CUNNINGTON TESTIFIES. ,
]. w. Cunnington, clerk until his ar '
est, Jan. 10. 1897, testified that he re-
eived stamps from Barrett or Mcbride,
Usually the latter. Made daily settle
nent with Mcbride. Every night he
placed stamps in the box and carried
AiNiii ~ eiic UP u liic otdllS ., ttHQ MI 3,
Bride put them in the vault. Mcbride /,
md | kept sheets, which were balanced
It the end of each month. In Novem-
Ter, 1896, he inquired for the balance
sheets i had for the past six months :
delivered them to him, and don't know !,
What became of than. Had conveIsa- I
ion about them afterwards, and went :
o the office and asked him where they
we're. and he said he had destroyed !
hem" :
In conversation on Jan. 3, he asked