The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-22

Banner impeachment trial II was after
40 o'clock when the proceedings were re-
stunned.
All the aldermen except Alderman
Thomas were present at a. m.
1t wac reported that Alderman Thomas
had told several parties the night before
that he Intended to leave the city and
would not be present at the meeting.
Officers were sent out to find the ABB
Hentee and during the wait q motion pre-
vailed that rule 10 be enforced and that
he be fined 81. Some wanted to amend the
rule and make II IS.
While waiting for Alderman Thomas
Aldermen Aubertin and Robinson strolled
of and when Alderman Thomas finally ap-
psared and II was found that Aldermen
Aubertin and Robinson were absent they
were also on motion fined 81 each.
The case was resumed shortly after 10
o'clock by the city Offering several Wit
nesses In rebuttal
OFFICER Q. j. Menard was the nrst wit
ness put on the stand. He remembered
receiving two pieces of scrip for April and
May salaries, 1885, one piece Of scrip was
for $780, the other for $40. He deposited
both OF these pieces Of scrip in Fox's
bank and got an Sdyance on them OF 75
per cent OF their face value.
His memorandum book showed that II
was Va w bNuNsAAgt JuhV @ hAHN AN -Nh
the $50 piece OF scrip Put It in Fox's
bank Monday. June 10. Put the $75 piece
1n FoX's bank Saturday, July l6. On Au-
gust ~ be got an advance OF IS per cent
on them aud Mr.. Dennis then bought the
scrip from him at 30 cents.
On cross lnation-Witness said he
had never seen the piece OF scrip for $50
IN evidence until this trial came up. IL
had his name on tho blck Of IT., but he did
not write Il.
Attorney Sam complained Of the mat
tentlon Of aldermen 10 the testimony.
Alderman Aubertn asked witness II ne
had received the piece Of scrip In evidence.
lie said he had moi and that It was not
his signature on the back OF e,
Mr. Banner asked witness why he had
not refreshed his memory with his memo
Tandum book when he was first on the
stand. He said that ne did not know at
that time that he had the memoranda In
the book.
BY Alderman BEAVERTON Witness could
not remember whether ssS appeared on
one part Of the scrip and $50 on another
portion OF #. Witness ndorsed the $50
piece OF scrip he sold to Mr.. Dennis It
was not his signature on the $50 piece Of
scrip in evidence, but Mr. Banner admitted
TO having signed this piece Of scrip.
II. A. Shaw was the next witness. He
was secretary OF tho last grand jury. Mr..
Cummings appeared before that grand
fury lie recognized the pay roll OF Feb
Tuary, 1899, shown him as being before the
grand jury. Mr., Cummings told the
grand Jury that he Cummings had made
all the changes on that pay roll lie was
also shown the pay roll for November
1898. DID not remember whether that
pay roll was before the jury or not. There
were number OF pay rolls before the
grand jury. ten or fifteen OF them, and Mr
Cummings said no had made all 10,
changes on all tho pay rolls that were
shown him and that Mr.. Banner had no
made any OF the changes.
Mir Banner asked witness II Mr.. Cum
mlngs did not say that he wrote thu
names on the pay roll and that some .
the figures were changed by him.
Mr. Shaw--"fie said that he had made
all Of the changes on the roll. We did not
specify each name on the roll. Mr. Cunm-
mings was before the grand jury for
possibly half hour. Mr.. Cummings said
ne made the changes on the roll al the
request OF Captain Jack Kennedy Iudze
Brlshear was foreman o. tho grand Jury
aud asked tho witness the questions The
fury took a good deal OF interest in the
Ease."
BY Alderman Bennett-Wltnoss sald
that In every pay roll shown 10 Mr. Cum
mings he admitted to having made the
changes.
In reply to a question by Alderman
oLeary the witness refused 20 say how
the matter was brought before the grand
fury
Mr.. Banner osked how 1t was that he
was willing to testify 70 other matteia
before the grand jury.
Witness sim refused 20 disclose who
brought the matter before the grand Jury
Mr.. Banner appealed 10 the mayor 4
have witness answer the question
The mayor said that It was a question
OF privilege
The witness did not answer the uues.
ton. but said; we had very few wit
nesses before the grand jury in this case,
The mayor read the statutory oath o.
the grand jury imposing secrecy eXccp
IN subsequent judicial proceedings, wher
they might disclose the evidence beiort
them.
Mr. Shaw said that under this oatt
he refused TO disclose who brought IN,
matter before the grand jury He con
strued the exemption 10 refer simply {,
the evidence that was given before III,
Jury.
Mr.. Henry Thompson, deputy chief o.
police. was the next witness. He wa,
shown the special police pay roll foi
May, 1885. lie ma maze out himlla
roll 20 this for Mr.. Baugh, but NOT thu
roll shown him. though he recognzet
It az being correct as to names ant
amounts. He also made out the Jun
pay roll and attached Il to the regula
roll. Mr.. Thompson said the special rol
he made out for May was on a piece o
fools cap or legal cap paper and not o.
q regular blank. It was approved by n
mayor. Alderman fluffy and Alderma
Rosenthal and was o,k'ed by Mr.. Baugl
who WAC then chief OF police
II kept the time" said Mr.. Thompson
By Alderman o'Leary--"Is Il not Fac
that the police sergeants keep tho time q?
Yes, but this was under special ar
rangement that was keeping tho time
replied Mr. Thompson.
Questioned by Mr.. Banner: w4tne
said he recognized hiB signature on i
special roll. Il was not the one he MAJ
out. but Il was correct, and he signed
He ala not regard it as a bogus roll
49,
Mr. w n. Hamilton was the next wi
ness. Hfe was shown tho June pay 70
1855. He had signed the name Of j.
Foley on this pay roll, | had receiy