Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1900-03-28
Judge Steele Decides That All the
Alleged Forgerles May Be Used
10 Show Intent.
SOME DAMAGING DISCLOSURES.
The States Case Strengthened by the New
Tesiimony-Defense Making a
Strong Fight.

The trial Of the Tannahill forgery case
still holds the attention of the district
court. The attorneys are making a hot
contest of every mooted legal point The
prosecution scored an advantage Monday
| by the decision that evidence of other al
legged forgeries could be introduced in
this case to show intent of the defendant,
and most OF the evidence brought before
the court this week has been that con-
cerning the other fraudulent warrants.
| The state has shown i'll every instance
that there was no authority given in the
| commissioner S record for the issuance Of
the warrants in question. Parties to
whom the warrants were drawn have
been placed on the stand The testi-
mony of MIR. Mounce and Mr.. Brock
man will be read with interest. The
case develops slowly and will hardly be
concluded this week
P. + Stokey, the present auditor and
recorder of Nez Perce county, interro-
gated by Mr.. Danford, stated that he
qualified for Office January g. 1899, and
had been since that time custodian of the
county records. He had known defend
ant for nine or ten years and identified
his signatures on the warrants i'll ques-
ton. The witness was then presented
with book of blank warrants and the
testimony brought out that the alleged
fraudulent warrant (exhibit Al exactly
fitted to a stub torn from the back of a
warrant book not in use, and that the
true warrant (exhibit b fitted to the
stub in the regular book in use.
Mr.. Stokey, continuing, said: when
| succeeded to the Office which ! now
hold had conversation with Mr.. s. o.
Tannahill referring to this and other
warrants. THIS occurred in January
1899, and was held i'll this office. There
had been considerable inquiry concern.
ing warrants, and | asked him where
would find them. He said they were in
a leather wallet i'll the safe. This war.
rant (exhibt Al | found in the wallet
and took it out and sent it to Mr All
SHE, attorney for Dr. Stockton, requir
ing a receipt from him. / sent him the
warrant February 1, 1899. Exhibit
was returned to us by Mr.. Hastings. A.
, custodian of the records OF the count,
, commissioners of this county / will say
that no other bill was allowed by thi
board other than the first one of $37 50
and ! have the record book of the boar,
of county commissioners which show
that a SIS bill was presented to then
from DIR. Stockton and was allowed t,
the amount of $3.50. This occurs OF
page $40 of book + of the proceedings O
) this body. have made dilgent searcl
, and can find no other bill in the record
, allowed To this DR.. Stockton other thai
. the one testified to by me. Nez Perc
county keeps also a book OF reference
and record OF county warrants and ! All
its custodian. | received this book fror
S. o. Tannahill. / will state that til
warrant exhibit b is shown TO be regis
tered in this book on page 1870 on Jul
80, 1898, and it shows it paid by tn
treasurer of this county in March, 1896
This warrant (exhibit Al, No 2444, is NJ
registered in this book and the forme
one of the same number is the only OH
mentioned herein"
The state recalled Expert Cunnn,
ham, who testified that he was famii;
with :. O. Tannahills signature, an
that the one on the warrant was his, bl
that his knowledge of defendants hant
writing was only theoretical, never ha,
ing seen defendant sign his name, b,
that his conclusions were drawn from f
miliarity with defendants handwritin
in the records of the board of count
commissioners as transcribed by him.
Redirect by Mr.. Johnson, witness te
tilted that after careful examination
the records he could find no authori
for the issuance of this warrant.
! TX SlhAG tiiNil pldSCh J-bSh 1hJtHNS I
the stand in behalf Of the prosecutio
He testified that he had at one time be,
sheriff of Nez Perce county. That
was familiar with the handwriting of
fendant and with his signature, but tn
he could not swear positively to the 81
nature on the warrant in question, /
denied the signature on the warrant
\ be his own. but could not say whether
had authorized Mr.. Tannahill to sign
him or not, or whether he had receiv
; the money therefor. That lie had had
contract with the county commissions
to furnish wood 10 the amount OF fifty
sixty cords, for which he was to recei
* * Or Is. so per cord: he could not 81
This contract was in the summer OF ls'
y That he had made an additional contr
with Mr.. Armstrong, chairman OF
3 board, for corlwood, but could not