The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1907-04-16

during the day, the first of whom was
a. M. Mcmillan,
Clerk OF the Board of County Commits
Sioners who stated that it was the
usual practice for county commission
ers to make up bills for road work pei
formed in their respective districts,
and that warrants We're issued to per
sons alleged to have performed the
work upon the %. X" of the commits
sioner in whose district the work WAS
said to have been performed
Wesley Fell.
There were three warrants drawn N
the name of Wesley Fell that were Of
fcred in evidence. They were dated
April 10. 1906, May s, 1906 and SeptaTu-
Der II, 1906 and were for $1,000, $500
and $1,000, respectively. Mr.. Fell Jes-
tilted that he had never performed
any work for the county of Escam bia;
that he had never endorsed the war
rants and that mis- signature thereto
was a forgery i'll each instance. He
stated that he had seen in The Jour
nal. in the list of county warrants
drawn, one in his favor for the sum of
SIG; that he had a conversation with
Commissioner Andrews relative to the
matter and that Commissioner An
drews bad told him that was the only
way to make any mOney-tO have war
rants drawn for his friends" Mr.. Fell
had then told Mr.. Andrews that he
Geld had done no work and that he
did not want his name to appear N
that way. This sum, $1,000, it is
stated vas returned to the county by
Commissioner Andrews about 60 days
after the warrant had been issue with
the statement that it had been drawn
through error.
John Henderson.
A warrant had been drawn in the
name of Mr. Henderson, dated Febrrl-
cry Is, 1906, for the sum of $50 for
hire of q team for 10 days at $500 per
day Mr. Henderson testified that he
had done some work on the road for
which he had received pay, agsTegatinS
in all about $40, but that he never
had team and had never hired 4
team. He had not received the war
rant for $40 and had not endorsed 1t
The warrant has the endorsements:
John Henderson" Jas NJ. Andrews"
William Roberts.
Two warrants were in evidence
draw in favor of Mr. William Roberts.
dated February IS and May s, 1906,
for SIS and s12 respectively Mr.
Roberts said that he had worked for
the county on enc occasion only, but
that he did not remember the number
of days that he had worked or the
amount that he had received for the
labor. He was positive that he had
not endorsed either of the warrants:
that he had only worked once for the
county and had only received money
once.
J. NJ. Rich, Sr.,
]. NJ. Rich, ST., testified that he had
been sick from some time in June I'M
til after the September storm. A war
rant was issued in his favor dated
September II, for $1400, for days
hire of a team at 50 per day Mr. Rich
stated that he had been unable to work
during the month of September, and
that he did not hire any team to the
county. lack Roberts had met witness
one day and called his attention to the
fact that warrant had been issued
Mr.. Rich stated that he had not ~e-
ceiYed the money represented by the
warrant and that the endorsement was
not in his handwriting
Gus ViIiar.
A warrant was shown in favor of Mr..
Villar, dated May s, 1906, for $40 Mr..
Nillar stated that the only work ne
had ever done for the county was two
days at $1.25 per day and that he had