The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-04-25
Former Superintendent Of Poor
Department Tells His Story
ID to the Jury.
He Denies Any knowledge Of
Padding the Bills of the
Department.
Says Bookkeeper Always Made
Out Bills and Presented
Them for Audit.

Reclining easily in the witness
chair and smiling in most careless
and nonchalant fashion, w. Fl. john
son, the Ames superintendent or the
poor department., accused or crlInllal
Irregularities, this morning told the
court and jury his side Of the story.
His testimony amounted simply to a
denial Of any participation in or any
knowledge of the graft" and point
ed to G. II. Brown, his clerk, as the
guilty man.
After recounting, in reply numer-
Gus questions propounded by his at
torney, A. H. Hall, his early history,
Mr.. Johnson was brought to the trans
actions upon which the case is based.
He stated that he had never been a
bookkeeper and knew nothing about
the clerical work Of the poor depart
ment office. Brown had entire
charge Of all that" he said.
Did you have anything to with
making UP the accounts or present
ing them to the board of charities
and corrections for audit" asked
Mr.. Hall.
II did not"
Did Not Handle the Bills.
ibid you prepare the budget for
March, 1903, or present it to the
board?"
mo, sir, did not
Did you prepare, examine or pre-
sent this bill to the board for audit?
asked counsel, showing the witness
the Schoheld & Allen bill which was
padded $1,000.
mo, sir, / never saw that bill until
this trial was commenced. In fact'
don't think I ever presented bill to
the board of audit during my term OF
office. Brown did all that"
you have heard the testimony OF
Brown in which, referring to grocery
orders, he said he had a conversation
with you in which you told him that
orders had been telephoned in and
ordered him to make them out. LIS
that true?"
mo, sir, 1t Is not true. We had nc
such conversations.
Did you give him any such or
ders?"
II did not
Did you have those orders in your
possession"
II did not; I never saw them until
to-day"
Mr.. Brown testified that you told
him that on account Of heavy expenses
you would have to make, up your loss
and you suggested and outlined plar
of padding grocery bills. Did you ever
have any such talkT,
mo, SIR
Dlu he even SuSSest BULL {" Piaii ~
your" ~
He did not
Did you know that he was doinG
anything Of that kind" -
IT never suspected it,
just an Accommodation.
Johnson related how he had give1
the money to Scofleld & Allen TO
their March bill simply as an accom-
mediation. He averred, however, tina
1n ah the warrant. althO h
admitted he Endorsed it. He stated II
this connection that he did not know
for what amount the warrant wa
made out and that he did not see tn
face when he Endorsed 1t on the back
and thus did not know that 1t wa
drawn for $45.5O when he paid SEQ
field e. Allen only SIS.
The witness then told Of his attacl
Of inflammatory rheumatism, whic>
resulted in his lameness and poor eye
sight and these infirmities were give
as explanations of certain suspicion
circumstances brought out by tn
state.
This afternoon Mr.. Jelley, assistan
county attorney, is carrying on
strenuous cross-examinatiOn by Whic
he hopes to break down the story @
the defendant. The prosecutor real
ICES that If he does not weaken tn
testimony of Mr.. Johnson, the chanc
of conviction will be lessened.
Prior to Johnson's going on tn
stand, an effort was made to prove, t
the satisfaction of the jury, the goo
reputation of the defendant. Mr.. Jel
ley, by close cross-eXamination c
the five character" witnesses, en-
deavored to show that the defendant
reputation was good only UP to tn
time the first indictments forembez
Element were returned against hin
and he thus succeeded In getting be
fore the jury the fact of a previou
trial and a verdict of guilty.
The character" witnesses were:
e. Naegele j. M. Pulliam, B. F. Ne
son, Thomas Voegei and f. B. Lont
Johnson will probably be the las
witness for the defense, and the cas-
should go to the jury tomorrow after
noon.