Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-12-06
Inspector Frederick Gives Testl-
mouy as to Meighan's Accounts
Cheers PUT IN EVIDENCE
Assistant Postmaster Bapp, the First
witness for The Defense - ADJ
iournment TIL Monday

lHe pIOsttutloH III tiN 'oNN " W"
United States against Charles MeIghan
at 1916 this morning rested Its case,
after the examination of Postoflice In
spector Frederick, who had the investl-
cation In hand. The government UNI
dertook successfully TO prove that there
was q deficit In the accounts OF the Og-
den postofilce on and prior to April 10
Of this year. The evidence introduced
brought forth the fact that on Jan. l
the balance sheet Of the years business
showed a discrepancy OF S3O,O7 In the
accounts OF Postmaster Melghan
against the balance sheet In the office
OF the auditor at Washington. Suisse
quent to that date and prior to April
IL OF this year. the dehcit In the post
office amounted TO s2,60Sl2, divided as
follows: Money order department 81
1902, postal department N,ia7 50. for
which Charles Melghan Is alleged 20
have been responsible. This conclusion
was arrived at after a most exhaustive
examination OF the accounts OF the
post0flice During this Investigation,
such was the condition OF the books
that II became necessary to discard the
cash book and throw other memoranda
on one side and 60 right back and
check up every money order certificate
and every cancelled document repre-
senting cash.
The defence carly In the game show
ed Its hand, judging from the number
Of questions that were asked and sub
sequently ruled out by the court.
Charles S. Rapp, former assistant post
master was the only witness examined
this morning end when the case was
adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday
morning he was still on the stand The
questions asked tended to show by in
ference that a former employee OF the
postoffice was responsible for the
shortage in q measure, also that the
alleged errors were occasioned by faulty
bookkeeping, or perhaps. to be more
correct, the absence of any bookkeep-
ing.
For the major part the evidence this
morning was confined to the Identified
ton Of documentary evidence, but al
though the proceedings were about as
dry as the ordinary time table Of q
\iallroad they were listened TO with
great interest by Mrs. Meighan and
several ladies who accompanied her.
FREDERICK RECALLED.
Inspector Frederick was recalled this
morning and was subjected to a rIgor-
Gus ss-examination by Atty. Ma
ginnis. From the start there was con-
siderable sparring over questions per-
tanning to the debit balance OF $62l 30
that was evolved from the regular an
nual inspection Dec. IA. 1901, Witness
was asked to explain how he arrived
at that balance In answer he stated
that he got II from the postofiice cash
book and weekly reports, TO the best Of
his recollection. Upon the cash book
being produced by counsel witness
stated that he could not find any such
balance.
Witness, In answer 10 questions, stat
ed in substance that when he taxed
Meighan with a deficit In his accounts
that the defendant asked TO be arrested
and the affair be investigated In court
so that his bondsmen might be protect
ed.
rs II not fact" asked counsel, that
Mr. Meighan complained that he had
not sufficient help In the postofiice and
offered to hire a bookkeeper at his own
expense, but you informed him that the
government would not allow II"
This question was objected TO by the
prosecution and sustained by the court
Coming down to the s214S which
was "disallowed" by the government
on checks that had been drawn by
Meighan and paid 10 railway mail
clerks on their salary account, witness
stated that he refused to honor the
checks because they represented an
overdraft on the postmaster's account
at the bank.
CHECK IN EVIDENCE.
Some discussion was also precipitated
by the defense introducing in evidence
o check for $500, dated Nov. Is, 1901.
which had been drawn by defendant
10 cover the deficiency found by the In
spectors. The court ordered the check
admitted In evidence.
At this juncture the government de-
clared its case closed
RAPP FOR THE DEFENSE.
The first witness for the defense was
c. s. Rapp. former assistant post
master at Ogden Witness stated that
he was appointed assistant postmaster
Feb. u. 1892, succeeding George j. KEEL
ly who Initiated him into his duties
on the date named and two subsequent
days.
When witness took over the position
he said that there was no cash book
kept in the department. and when night
came he and Kelly counted up the cash
M a. aaftaa a nd ~ nm.
a slip OF paper. Some time after
wards witness said he discovered that
there was a shortage In the cash and
he called Postmaster Meighan's atten-
ton TO II.
Counsel then asked through whose In
fluence witness received the appoint
ment. This question was objected to
by Atty. Cherrington. whereupon Atty,
Maginnis said he thought II was es-
sentlally material. After reckoning to
Attys Lippman and Cherrlngton, the
three counsel walked UP TO Judge Mar
shall and a whispered conference re-
suited, extending for about I'VE min
utes. During this time the court at
stated intervals vigorously shook his
head. Finally the court sustained the
objection.
ArOtner ODJtCuOh was thieitu W Hc
question as to who had knowledge OF
the combination OF the safe In the post
office.
The answer forthcoming was. "Mr.
Meighan, Kelly and myself"
Then counsel asked whether witness
thought that the safe had been tam
pered with. Upon the word "discov-
cred" being substituted for thought
witness said NO
SOME DIFFICULTY.
At this junc,ure counsel experienced
considerable difficulty IN getting Wit
ness TO answer intelllgently certain
questions propounded. owing 10 his ap-
parent timidlty. Attention was CENTER
ed upon the cash book that had been
kept BY Rspp subsequent to his taking