The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-06
PUT NO CHECK ON MARTIN
and Did Not Examine His Books and
Accounts as Required.
COULD HAVE .lDETECrED HIS THEFT
Says Worth Warranted That Martin Kept His
Accounts Faithfully and That il Con-
rot be Liable For Any
Amount.

| The answer in the suit of ex-State
Treasurer w. H. Worth against the U. S.
Fidelity and Guaranty Company, to re-
, cover the amount of Mai. Martins steal
ings was filed yesterday in the office Of
the clerk of the court.
The answer was filed by Messrs. Armi-
stead Jones and Son. attorneys for the
Baltimore Bond Company, that went on
Martins bond while institutional clerk
in ex-State Treasurer Worth's office.
The amount of Martins shortage, for
which suit is brought to recovery
through H. w. Jackson, trustee, is
approximately $4,000
The defendants deny responsibility for
the shortage. alleging that Treasurer
Worth failed to carry out conditions Oh
the bond and contract entered into.
which were for the protection OF the
bonding company
1t is claimed that a written applica-
ton made and signed by w. H. Martin,
and a like one by w. H. Worth, relative
to the duties, responsibilities and check
to be used upon the said, Martin were
sent to the defendant, and upon the
faith of this application and statement
of the plaintiff Worth, the defendant
executed the bond referred to-
1t is further maintained that the said
ar plication of w. H. Martin and the
statement made thereon by the plaintiff.
w H. Worth on the 10th day of January.
1897, entered into and became part of
the contract of indemnity, and they
were the inducements to the issuance of
said bond; that in said statement the
plaintiff. w. H. Worth, warranted that
the said w. H. Martin kept his account
faithfully. and that balances were made
and examined every month; that the
maximum amount of money he would
probably have in his hand at any one
time was twenty-five hundred dollars;
whereas, as defendant is informed and
belives, and so ayers, the accounts of
said w. H. Martin were never properly
examined by the said w. H. Worth, and
the amount of money, kept in the hands
of said Martin, sometimes greatly ex-
ceeded the sum of twenty-five hundred
dollars that the said w. H. Martin kept
the bank book, check book, account
books and other books of his department,
and the same were never properly eX-
amined and inquired into by said w. H.
Worth that the checks were drawn by
the said w. H. Martin sometimes to
cover vouches he pretended to have, but
di dnot have. and they wer signed by
said w. H. Worth without examination
or inquiry, and at other times the said
W. H. Martin raised the amounts of said
vouches, changed and forged the num-
bers upon the checks that were sgnd
by said W. H. Worth and sometimes
used checks that were taken from the
back of the check book, bearing a
larger number than these used in the
daily course of business, which checks
were recklessly signed by the said w.
H. Worth, and which were entered in
the pass book of the bank upon which
the checks were so drawn, and the
fraudulent check scould have been easily
discovered and readily detected upon an
inspection of said check book and pass
book; that the books of the treasurer's
office were changed in many respects by
the said Martin, which could have been
easily detected by inspection, and in
many other ways the plaintiff w. H.
Worth through gross negligence and
failure upon his part to examine the
said books and accounts, permitted the
said w. H. Martin to fraudulently APP
propriate to his own use, the States
funds in his possession and keeping if
any was so appropriated by Martin;
That the defendant is advised that by
failure Of the plaintiff w. H. Worth to
examine the said books and accounts,
as we'll as by such large sums of money
belonging to the State to be and remain
in the hands of the said w. H. Martin,
and by the failure to examine especially
teh vouchers, bank books. check book,
account books and other books at the
time OF signing checks for money that
was received by said Martin, the de-
fndant was relieved of all liability of
said bond, and it pleads said act and
doings in defence of this action