The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1920-01-22
TESTIMONY PRESENTED
nv GRAHAM CASE
Continued from first page

given and referred to one count charg
ing larceny of $500 in the indictment
while Mr.. Barber had referred to it a
S24.54 and as an overdraft He ad
mitted this was an extreme case.
The attorney general objected to th'
character of the outline and the crit
icism of the states indictment. ludg'
Butler suggested that the outln,
should be confined to what the defense
intended TO show.
| Mr. Darling explained to the jury
that red ink balances were carried on
the books Of the auditor when Mr.
Graham was the auditor and that moth
ing was covered up, that everything
was above board as to the arrange.
ments, and any person could find out
correctly the amount outstanding
There had not been the slightest at.
tempt to conceal anything on the rec
ords.
| Mr.. Archibald again objected TO any
deductions.
Mr. Darling said Mr., Graham was
waiting to ascertain the amount of the
overdraft when he went out of office to
make the settlement His figures OF
the amount of overdraft when he left
the Office were Ss.T75.4l, while the state
only claims Ss,657.l0. He added that
Mr. Graham acted in good faith, believ-
ing he had a right TO do as he did and
| that he was ready TO meet the de-
mands when the amount was ascer-
tanned He further explained that the
two orders for 81 200 and 81 500 were
| for money which went TO the highway
department aud which had previously
been advanced by the auditor from his
personal account and that he drew the
orders to himself in the settlement.
At the beginning of the testimony
Mr.. Barber offered certified copies of
| the election OF Mr.. Graham as auditor
from 1902 to 1907, excepting the bien-
NAL periods Of 1904 and 1905. Mr..
Stickney objected to the records dating
| back OF the indictment. This was
agreed to and the records admitted
were from 1912 to 1917
Auditor BENJAMIN Gates on Stand
Benjamin Gates, Mr. Graham's sue
cessor in office, was the first witness,
| Objection was raised when he was asked
how his attention was called to Mr..
Graham's account. The objection was
made as TO the manner in which the
testimony regarding the account was
being submitted on the grounds that
the records were the best testimony.
Mr.. Gates then referred to the accounts
that appeared on pages Is and 20 OF
the distribution ledger. Objection was
made 10 this but the testimony was
allowed TO stand and Mr.. Gates con-
tinued. He then described the distribu
ton ledger, as the book is called. He
testified the personal expenses of
payee are sworn to by the payee.
Mr.. Stickney asked several questions
before the book was shown TO the jury,
relative to the working method of the
book It appeared by comparison be-
tween pages 20 and Is that more money
had been drawn than had been ae-
counted for, as a result of Mr.. Stick
ney's questioning. The explanation of
the book was then made TO the jury
Following the afternoon recess, OF
fers of testimony regarding orders
signed by II. +. Graham were made
Order sl66, April "a, 1913, for 500,
was offered, showing that the order
was cashed at Newport. Order s40l,
May Is, 1913, for 300, was offered,
showing MIR Graham's endorsement,
and that of Graham and Skinner APP
peared upon this order
Then followed the introduction Of
the p orders. each OF which was used
TO prove a count in the indictment, as
is given in the following order:
E-E MAJ %
1918, endorsed by Mr.. Graham and
Graham and skinner; order $500, 500,
MAY 2S, endorsed by Graham; order
s5as, $3.50, June ?, endorsed by Mr.
Graham; order SOL. $500, June |, en-
dorsed by Mr.. Graham; order $500.
$3.50. June II, endorsed by Mr.. Graham;
order $40. $3.50. June Is, endorsed by
Mr.. Graham; order $685.. 500, June ~
BY Mr.. Graham: order sa6T. 500. June
25. by Mr.. Graham; order sl26. SlO0,
July /, by Mr. Graham.
Over this payment there was consid-
cradle dispute. because Mr.. Gates read
that the treasurer paid this Nov. 5,
1918. while the indictment did not agree
with it and Mr.. Stickney objected to II.
The state became fused over the mat
ter and considerable effort was made to
straighten out the matter. Finally Mr..
BARRIERS motion TO strike out all that
testimony was allowed and the testi
mony put again. Even then Mr.. Stick
ney objected 10 IL, which was denied,
and he took exceptions.
Order a222. $500. July ). by Mr.. era
ham: order Ops. $3.50. July Z, by Mr..
Graham: order 9246, July ., 5000, BY
Mr.. Graham, Graham and skinner; or
der a32s, July Il. $500, Mr.. Graham,
Graham and skinner. order 92ss. July
p. sl00. BY Mr.. Graham; order $3.50,
Aug. G, Mr.. Graham. Graham and skin
ncr. order lOl9s, slO0, Sept. Is. Mr.
Graham; order l022s. Sept. 80. 500,
Mr.. Graham, Graham and skinner: or
der I0343. Oct 2, $500. Mr.. Graham;
order lO6O3. Oct 20. 500, Mr.. Graham. |
Graham and skinner; order 1926, Aug. /
II. $500. Mr.. Grahams order e70l. Aug /
Is. 500. Mr.. Graham; order io023. /
sept. rs. $50. Mr.. Graham; order TO-
lea. Sept. l3. $3.50. Mr.. Graham. era I
ham and Skinner. order l07l6. Nov 3. /
500. Mr.. Grahami order i0sS0. Nov I
Is. sl00. Mr.. Graham. Graham aud /
Skinner.
when this order Wa introduced the /