St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1907-11-20

tary OF the board, teStihed the same as
Mr.. Smith and supposed his duties as a
+ witness were over. But Lawyer Stick
f ney had few questions up his sleeve
and in two hours of searching cross
examination forced Mr. Bingham to
admit that he did after all charge for
his services on the day of the republican
{ state convention. Though Mr.. Bingham
was witness for the state his confusion
, on the stand proved him TO be an excel
! lent witness for the defense
. Great emphasis was laid by the At
, torney General on the fact that Mr..
Howard spent several days in Spring
field, Mass, and one Sunday in Hanover
, at the states expense. Answering these
charges Mr.. Howard testified that when
he was at Brattleboro on Saturday he
spent Sunday at Springfield and returned
to his official duties Monday, preferring
to stop at Springfield than Vermont
hotel AS he had no railroad fare to pay
the difference, if any, in his expense
account would be the difference between
the hotel bills at Springfield and Brattle-
boro. On the Sunday spent in Hanover,
his son, then in Dartmouth College,
helped him prepare report on an acct
dent.
When Mr.. Howard was on the stand
the Attorney General laid great stress on
the fact that he spent one day in coming
and another in returning to his home.
when by hustling little more he could
have saved the state one or two days.
The attorney general also elected the
the fact that Mr.. Howard never pat
ronized the Craftsbury stage, where the
rate was rs cents, but always hired
team between Hardwick and his home in
Craftsbury. The telephone charges of
$11.30 Mr.. Howard said were for mes
sages sent to engage team to take him
| home from Hardwick and the hotel
charges at Hardwick Inn were incurred
when he started day ahead to reach
some point where hearing was to be
held the next day. All these items
amounted to about 1855 and before the
case went to theiury were all withdrawn
by the court from the jury's considera-
ton. This was done in ruling by the
court where the court denied the motion
of Lawyer Young that the court instruct
the jury to bring verdict for the de-
tense. The court ruled that the state of
Vermont had never recognized fractional
parts of a day, and said that if that
practice was to be disturbed he preferred
to let the supreme court do it. On the
fnality of the state auditors allowance
of claim the court said, he followed the
decisions of the courts of Kentucky, New
York, Illinois and other states; that the
authorities are pretty nearly nearly har-
monious on the question as to what ex-
tent the acts of the agent of the state
bind the state and it is pretty generally
held where the agent would bind per-
son who is the principal under similar
circumstances it will bind the state
when it occupies Imposition ofprincipal,
and where one occupies the position of
adjusting claims against the state that
his act is treated as conclusive unless it
is found that there is mistake OF fact or
duced through the fraud of the claim,
and taking this view of the case is there
evidence in this case tending to show
that the auditor was induced to allow
| them through a mistake Of facts or
| fraudulent action on the part of the
defendant ?
The court then submitted to the Jury,
when it was called into the room, the re-
naming items in the bill of specifications
amounting to little less than 500. The
court said these items stood on differ
ent foundation and the burden is on the
state to establish that they were not
necessary and to establish the fact by
fair balance of all the evidence in the
case that the auditor did not know and
understand the facts and that he was
induced to make the allowance for these
claims either through mistake or the
wrong representation written or oral on
the part of the defendant.
Exceptions to the courts rulings were
noted by the attorney-general on the
ground that the state purposes to have
the question settled whether the auditors
| allowance of an account under mistake
OF law concludes the state or whether
money can be recovered back.
The opening argument was made by
States Attorney Cook who ridiculed Mr..
Towards charges for room with a
bath at the Springfield hotel his trip to
Burlington with his wife, and appealed
to the native pride of the jury in referring
to the fact that when Mr.. Howard got
chance he did not patronize Vermont
hotel.
Lawyer Dunnett said this was not a
case to be lightly treated as the honor
and integrity of former state official
had been attacked. He said it was a
magnificent vindication of Mr.. Towards
honesty and integrity that with his
stewardship which involved Thousands
of dollars the cease had dwindled down to
an alleged overcharge of some hotel bills
at Springfield and the taking of his wife
to Burlington one time to care for him
when he was sick
Lawyer Stickney said it had been a
good while since he had been engaged in
a justice trial and referred with consider
able sarcasm to the pettiness of the
charges in the case. He spiced his argu
ment with the apt illustration that the
Syrian king in the Good Book had
trouble taking his bath because he want
ed to battle in the waters of Damascus
when the prophet insisted he battle in the
waters of the Jordan.
Attorney General Fits said the cues
ton involved in this case was whether
the jury believed that Mr.. How
ard ought to charge for his services
on the day OF the republican state con-
vention, and if he had also been unreason-
able or extravaganza in his charges on
the other days, by disappearing or
concealing the facts, then the state should
recover for those days.
:. The Jury quickly agreed upon their YER
FtrxNA h., Il. L 4. -