The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-16
WILSON ON THE STAND
SHELBY Ex-TREAsURER DEVELOPS
A COON FORGETTER.
His story of the CampbeiI-Wild Claim
Flood Damage at Evansville.
specIal &c the 1ndianapoIIs journal.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
SHELBYVILLE. Ind, June 15.-Judge
Morris. in overruling the motion TO strike
out the evidence concerning the claim filed
by ex-Treasurer Wilson in July last for
copying and transferring county records.
stated that the evidence had gone to show
fraud on the part of Mr.. Wilson,: that it
was an apparent fraud for a count treas
urer to make a contract with the commits
sioners to do a certain kind of work for 1
cent a line and then file a bill for an
amount so much I'm excess of the value of
the work. 1.-THE exclusion of evidence of
such grossly fraudulent compensation
would be a reproach upon itself. This case
belongs TO the category Of crimes where it
is allowed to prove similar crimes, and
hence can be admitted in the trial Of this
case. The County Commissioners are
trustees of the taxpayers, and Wilson held
a position of trust. If both the parties to
this contract acted from a fraudulent mo-
tive. as the evidence seems to indicate,
then 1T is a crime, evidence Of which may
be introduced"
Deputy Auditor Hayworth testified that
Wilson filed the coupons for interest the
first week in December. and received credit
on his account for the $1,000. Evidence
showed that there was some trouble in
getting a settlement between the treasurer
and auditor that month, and when Wilson
turned his Office over TO Lee they were
still checking up the warrants.
The line of defense, as laid down by Mr..
Wray. is that the interest paid by Mr.. Wild
on Oct. % by check was sought to be trans
ferred to its proper fund, and. accordingly,
a bill was filed at the regular December
term. but in some way it disappeared, and
accordingly. before the special term held
Dec. Is. he filed another claim. which claim
Is the one in controversy in this trial. 1t
was simply the first claim for interest re-
docketed.
about the entry on the claim docket, and
said the claim was considered In the pres
ence of the board. but after COMMISSIONS
Barnes protested IL was marked rejected"
On cross-examination Amos said that. to
his best recollection, the Dec. IL claim was
the original claim redocketed. He did not
remember testifying before the grand jury
that the claim was for financial agency in
getting the loan.
Reconnaissance Cherry swore that Will
son had said he had paid the interest and
filed a bill for the amount. The claim was
marked continued because it could not be
found when the board desired to reconsider
it. He said: THE claim was redocketed
at the special term, Dec. Is, and Wilson
asked that il be withdrawn and he would
take credit by his coupons cancelled. but /
marked it rejected"
Wilson was put on the stand. He said
he made the contract with Campbell, Wild
& Co.; on Oct. 2S Mr.. Wild ~telephoned to
him regarding interest that day due. AS
the commissioners had made no provision
for paying the interest ne sent a check on
his own responsibility, and subsequently
filed a claim "for interest paid in order
to have the warrant drawn. He had
no intent TO defraud the county. The claim
called for 81. 600 on a loan of 8 1000. and said
nothing about 2 per cent. The bill in con-
troversy was filed because the one mislaid
had been continued. He said the last time
he saw the bill he saw Gilman take 1t out
of the safe. The witness was examined on
his grand jury testimony. He could not
recollect most of the questions and an
swers, but remembered those not in conflict
with his present testimony and denied some
of the rest, aside from those he had forgot
ten.