The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1906-01-26
THE DAVIS CASE
STATE BARRED OUT OWNER
SHIP OF MONEY.
Expert Buchanan on the Stand Whole
DAY and Tells Jury How the
Shortage was Found.


people has been centered this week
in the case of ex-Deputy Sheriff G. P.
Davis, OH trial in the circuit court at
Pendleton. The real problems in the
case were not reached until Wednes-
day, when Sheriff Taylor took the
witness stand for the state. The next
important witness to follow him was
Mr.. Buchanan, who exported the
books of the sheriff. g office and found
the shortage of which Davis has been
accused.
On the stand Sheriff Taylor named
G. P. Davis, A. G. Funk, w. H. Fow-
Ter as having been employed in his
Office, the latter only during tax col
lecting time. OF these Davis was
chief deputy and had charge Of the
books, the cash and the keeping of the
bank account. He then again mar
rated the manner in which tax pay
ments are received. Funk and Fow-
Ter, he said, would receive money
during the day, while the money
would be turned over to Davis to en-
ter on the collection register and fin
ally to deposit in the bank.
Regarding the Office safe he stated
that he and Davis only had keys to
the money box. However, there was
change box in which small amounts
were kept and to which Funk had
access.
The private books of the Office were
then introduced and identified. In
these books are kept the accounts be-
teen the Office and the sheriff and the
deputies. They were kept by Davis.
"On July IL, 1905, did you make a
payment to the treasurer" was asked.
"Yes," replied the sheriff. "How
muc h?" "$12,O0 OF this amount"
he said, "all but $1,000 had been in the
Office at the time.
In answer to further inquiries the
sheriff said at that time he had $1,000
county money on hand but this was
secured by scrip and state certificates
left by him in the cash till. When
the $12, 900 payment was made this
amount was made up.
The sheriff was then asked if he had
examined the experts report and re-
piled he had. Also, that he had
checked the same and found that the
monies noted as received were cor
rect.
During the taking of Buohauan's
testimony, numerous questions were
asked the witness by Colonel Raley
with reference to the amount reported
short on July /, 1905. This amount
was said by Buchanan to have been
$4,000. "Was there not $12, 1000 short
at that timer" asked the defendants
counsel. mo SIR" came the reply,
and the same answer was given when
the question was repeated in diff
erent form later on.
Considerable stress was laid by
Colonel Raley upon the fact that no
shortage for 1899 had been reported,
aud numerous inquiries were made of
the witness as to why such occurred.
Also, an attempt was made to show
that the experts in their work had not
followed the same course for that year
as for other years. However, the point
was satisfactorily explained by
Buchanan, who stated that it had not
been necessary for them to take up the
proposition referred to.
The subject was then dropped and
consideration turned to the manner i'll
which the experts had compiled their
work.
did you not make up your report
from intermediate books in the
officer" was asked.
"The report was made up from an
inspection of the tax receipts aud from
the collection register, replied Bu-
chanan. Also, the witness denied
that those were intermediate sources.
He said that the bi-monthly reports
submitted by the sheriff to the county
court had not been consulted when
the exporting was done.
Also, he was asked if he had taken
any account of the amount of money
on hand in the Office at the time of
the investigation of the bank ac-
count or tax receipts in the drawer.
The reply was that no attention had
been paid to such matters, and that
there might have been $50, 1000, 900 ON
hand for all he knew.
AT this stage of the proceedings the
question was raised as to whether all
of the money alleged to be short be-
longed to the county. ''Did not some
of the amount due belong to the city
OF to the schools of the county,"
asked Colonel Raley. But the district
attorney instantly objected to the
question as not material upon cross
examination. However, said he,
''if the counsel for the defense wishes
to take up tho subject of whose
money it was, we are ready with ref
erences at any time. We maintain
that the money primarily belonged to
the county until it was segregated
into the different funds"
+. J. Sommerville, county treasurer,
was the next witness for the prosecu-
tion. He said that no money had been
paid to him since taking office ON
the taxes of the years from '94 to '9S
inclusive. There had, however, been
something paid all the years from and
including the year 1899. He was fol-
lowed by ]. +. Pfahlor, another ex-