Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1904-06-29
W. Va. $50. The expression o

opinion here complained OF was
so directly founded upon the wit
ness personal knowledge Of the
| facts Of the transaction under In
vestigation that it was difficult
for him to explain his own eonnec-
ton with them and his own acts
respecting it, without giving his
opinion. In other words, the eX-
preston of opinion was almost, If
not quite, necessarily incidental
to his narration of the facts, and
we are of the opinion that the
witness stated his belief or impress
sion as to the condition Of the Or
der at the time he signed it rather
than his opinion that it had been
altered. This is not improper.
A similar question is raised up
on exceptions to the rulings upon
the testimony of J. j. Mckay, as
sistant cashier of the First Ma
| tional bank, of Sistersville, who,
acting for the bank issued a New
York draft in exchange for the or
der, making it payable to Bently
e. Gerwig, and who said Pine
brought the order there and OBJ
tanned the draft. On cross-exam-
nation, he admitted that he based
his statement largely upon his
knowledge of the records OF the
bank respecting the transaction
and the facts that the draft was
in his handwriting and order had
remained in the bank thereafter
and been frequently handled by
him. But when asked to state, as
! a matter of fact, who was present,
| he said he knew Mr.. Pine was
present, and stood in the lobby OF
| the bank. The lapse Of time and
greatness of the number of trans
actions at the bank, tending to
dim the recollection of the trans.
action. was matter for the jury
and not for the Court, and the ev-
tidence was properly admitted.
William Bently, of the firm Of
Bently & Gerwig, in whose favor
the order purported to have been
made, was permitted to testify
over the objection of the accused,
that the City of Sistersville did
not owe said firm anything at the
time of the issuance Of the order.
AS shown hereafter the only issue
presented by the evidence was
whether the order had been alter
ed after it had been originally
made, and the relevancy Of the
fact that the city owed said firm
nothing at the date of the issuance
of the order is not perceived. We
are. therefore, of the opinion that
it should not have been admitted.
| On the issue Of the fraudulent
making of the order originally, 1t
might be relevant and admlssl-
BILE.
The accused was the City Clerk
of the City of Sistersville, having
authority, and being in duty
! bound, as such, to issue all orders
allowed by the Council OF said
city. In order to convict him OF
the false and fraudulent making
, of such an order, the burden is up
on the State to show that he is
sued it without authority as such
clerk. AS such officer, the city's
blank orders were entrusted to
him to be filled out in favor OF per-
sons whom allowances OF claims
were made by the Council. Ii
there is an order upon the minutes
of a meeting of the Council, di-
recting payment of the sum named
/ in the draft when issued, as stated
on the face of said draft, in the
words, "as voted by the Council, "
it matters not that the city did not
owe the amount SO allowed, for
! the minutes conferred authority
to make out the draft, unless, pos
sibly. it were shown that the ac-
cused fraudulently inserted the
direction in the minutes. Suppose
the Council corruptly, or by mad
vertence, should order draft
drawn in favor of some person to
whom nothing is DUE and, in pur-
suance of such order, the clerk
should make out the draft and de-
liver it? Could it be said he had
fraudulently made the instru-
i