The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1919-01-03
STATE RESTS IN
WILLIAMS CASE
Counsel for Commissioner
Ask His Discharge on
Three Counts
JUDGE TO DECIDE
THIS AFTERNOON
Respondent S Lawyers Claim That Intro
duction of Report for 1917 Nullifies
Charge That He Failed to Make One
for That Period.
to The Reformer.)
MONTPELIER. Jan.

mON ELlEh, Jan. ..
The state rested its ease against Bank
Commissioner Frank c. Williams at
10.45 this morning and Immediately
counsel for the respondent filed mo-
tion that he be discharged on counts.
!, and of the Indictment charging
him with malfeasance in office. In the
ease of count No ! which charged the
commissioner with tfailing to make an
examination for the period ending June
80, 1872 the defense based its mo-
tionaon the fact that the state had in
troduced as evidence the report of the
commissioner for the period in question,
which proved that he had made the re
port As to counts 2 and 7, which
charged failure to report to the legisla-
ture of 1917 and failure TO report as to
examination of the state treasurer s Of
fee the defence maintained that the in
PRODUCTION of the report mentioned was
sufficient answer.
The motion was taken under advise
ment by Judge Stanton, who was ex-
pected to give his decision this after
noon.
In another motion counsel for Mr..
| Williams asked for information on
counts 3, 4, and in which reference
| is made to ''certain fraudulent orders
and vouchers claiming that the word
r. certain made it incumbent upon the
state to specify exactly which orders
and vouchers. were meant. Attorney
General Barber opposed this motion on
| the ground that the phrase was intend
| ed to include all vouchers and orders
| for the period under consideration.
The witnesses examined this morning
were Frank S. Pratt of Brattleboro, who
| explained in detail to the jury the de
/ tails of the accounting methods IN eff
feet in the auditor Office, and State
| Auditor Gates, who was recalled for
brief questioning along the same lines.
In addition to introducing as evi-
dence the commissioner report for
1917, on which the defense based its
motion referred to above, the state put
in the reports of 1910, 1912 and 1913
as tending to show that the examina-
ltions of the commissioner for those
Years were faulty.
The evidence handed out yesterday
/ afternoon was about as stale stun as
has been heard since the trial began.
The attendance was as small as at any
time, not more than dozen appearing
during the afternoon. Some of these
STAYED but short time.
Benjamin Gates asked permission OF
1.-The court to correct some of the evil
denee he gave in the morning. He
wished it to be shown that the date OF
entry of the receipts was correct and
not mistaken for the date of entry OF
| -. .rxL+ ha, hnpn mn.
derstood in the morning.
Frank S. Pratt of Brattlehoro, who
nade the examination of the books fol
! the state, was the next witness. lie ex
planned to the jury how the accounts
are kept, the total orders drawn by
Graham on the state treasury during
the years Williams had been bank com
missioner amounted to $96, ,T00.31 while
the total credits as shown by vouch
) ers against the orders in the same pc
: riod amounted to $82, ,657.9S. In 19l-
and 1915 the orders were over-vouch
cred amounting in. total to $90916 fo
the two wears. This taken from tn
difference between the orders and TIL
vouchers credited left $14,042.33 whicl
lit was claimed is the total overdraf
made in those years by Graham an
which it is alleged Williams shoul
+, have found
! The state tried to show that NJ
; Pratt knew how the disbursing shee
! should be made up hut the defense OF
= ieeted on the grounds that the record
! showed for themselves. In cross e,
animation the defense endeavored I
show that the accounts should balanC
If all receipts were present and thu
they did not check up and that vouel
ers might have been removed whe
Pratt examined the book In accoun
II ing for the overvoucher items Mr.. Pra
said that probably that was in yea
when Graham twas little flush,
g than usual. = 08
,e ----