The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1919-01-04
Sometimes They Were Very
Late in Making Their
Appearance
RESPONDENT TOLD
ON STAND TO-DAY
Defense Is Putting in Evi-
dence in Malfeasance
Case


the case of State VS.. Bank Commissioner
Frank G. Williams of Newport, who ia
charged with malfeasance in office ID
failing to report conditions in the audit
or's Office while H. + Graham was au-
ditor. MIR. Williams went on the stand
Immediately after the defense began its
side of the case yesterday afternoon
Considerable of the morning was occu
pied to-day by dispute between counsel
over the admission of advancement and
advances" in evidence. The court finally
explained the term and allowed it TO be
used. So warm waxed the discussion be-
! tween attorneys at one time that the dc.
fence took exceptions TO the statement
of the state, the defense claiming that
the state was characteriziug the testi-
mony Of the witness (Williamsl as an
argument to the jury The court allowed
the exceptions
The respondent then resumed his story
He had started out yesterday afternoon
by testifying as to his early life, bis
training and his various kinds of work
until his appointment ais bank commits
sioner. He then tried TO tell how many
savings banks there are in the state, to
show how little time he had for the ex-
animation of the auditors Office He
brought new term into the case, name
", departmental vouchers" from other
departments which, be said frequently
were all he found in the files. the same
meaning receipts and not itemized youcl-
ers. He testified that Mr.. Graham some.
times was late in getting the vouchers
into the files.
Mr.. Williams testified to-day that Il
was a custom to allow advances to be
made in large sums To some 20 or 30 de-
partments, including the auditor high
way, secretary Of state, board Of health
prison, medical registration, agriculture
in fact, about every department, accord
ing TO the witness He explained that
the sums varied and that only persopal
receipt, which he termed al the depart
mental receipt was given when the order
for the money was given, Later the
itemized vouchers would appear and Be
placed in the files
He testified that be only used the files
and the day book the first years Of his
examination but ina lal2 AZ. eoalmencsd
TO use the ledger. because he found TIE
itUmized vouchers were not appearing
Insthe year 1912, all the itemized vouch.
ers showed up. excepting one for slo275,
by July ], 1914, and that il finally ap
peared in the Graham account,
The respondent was still ontthe stand
when adjournment was taken to-day till
10 a. M. Monday.
Courts Decision Sustaining Indictment.
Following the decision of the court,
denying the petition of the respondents
attorneys for the quashing of six Of the
seven counts and granting the petition
on the seventh count, the defense began
the presentation Of testimony yesterday
afteroon. In announcing his decision, the
Judge said
I'VE have given this matter as much
consideration as the limited time we have
been occupied in looking it over permit
ted, and shall continue to investigate lt
until the close OF the case, to SEQ il we
discover If we have been wrong IN any
thing that we are about 20 do. It is the
unanimous opinion Of the court that We
ought to and we do hold the first and
second count good and the motion with
respect to it is denied
"As to the third, fourth fifth and
sixth counts, as we understand the mai.
ter as presented TO us. the respondents
counsel desire that the state should more
concisely, or rather more elaborately. in-
dicate what orders they claim to have
been fraudulent, what sums were drawn
upon fraudulent orders, We think on
this proof that it is fair TO state, and
the court informs the respondent of the
nature of the accusation made against
him, to say that all unvouchered orders
are found all sums obtained in such .
way as that, that is, sums obtained
without authority, and for which no
vouchers are given would be fraudulent
orders.
"In reference to the seventh count, we
cannot see how it serves any useful pur-
pose to retain that count as the evidence
stands, because all that the evidence has
any relation to embodied in that ac.
count is, if we are not mistaken, con.
tanned IN the second count; therefore, we
grant the motion in regard to the sew
enth count; and, in SO far as that count
is concerned, the respondent is dis
charged"
Plumley Outlined Defense's Case.
Frank Plumley, attorney for the re
spondent, opened the defenses case and
was opposed by Attorney General Bar
Der when he told the jury what the re-
spondent expects to prove. Having Gov
cred the history Of the work of the bank
with a view to showing
that he had not neglected his work and
that the work Of the department did not
give him time TO do the auditing so as TO
make an expert accounting, Mr.. PlumleY
stated that the vouchers have always
been in their proper places until recently
He explained that the respondent had al.
ways been able to get the vouchers intg
the files before the time for making his
report by urging Mr. Graham to secure
them. He said the respondent expected
to show that sometimes these vouchers
were not returned as soon as at other
times, so itemized vouchers matched re
eeipts that were filed in the office, show
ing the orders had been drawn,
Attorney Plumley said that in 1914 all
the itemized vouchers were on file OK
ceptiug about $1,000, and later all these
came, excepting Sl02.75, and finally
voucher appeare6 for them. IN 1916 all
the vouchers we're in their proper place
excepting enough TO cover $500, which
sum was explained as clerk hire and
other expenses, and before the report
Continued ON eighth page