The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-01-28

ical expenses of Mr.. Deavitt as state
treasurer and insurance commissioner
for which he received reimbursement.
! Asked if Secretary of State Fleetwood
received reimbursement the witness said
he did not. The amount was 81 05l. The
witness said he could find no trace of the
81 200 and 81 800 highway fund" orders.
On the highway books oyerdrafts on the
Greensboro road total $564.88.
On cross examination the witness was
asked by Mr.. Stickney "if Mr.. Graham
did not have the money, should he be
charged with it?
NO" answered the witness.
On further crosse examination of Mr..
Pratt the defense brought out that if
the four questioned accounts are all owed
the balance against Mr.. Graham would
be $l973S23, and placed against this
$l9,SS0.4S paid, the balance in Mr.. Gra-
hams favor would be Sl42.25.
Mr. Gates testified yesterday that the
total amount of money for which there
| were no vouchers from October 9, 1902,
| to January Z, 1917, when the respondent
ceased as state auditor was $26, ,429.18.
This amount included the orders on
| the state highway account for $4,000
which has been in dispute. Mr.. Gates
| testified that the figures in red ink
| to which reference has been made
during the trial did not include these
| two orders amounting to $4,000. The
red figures show the shortage in the
| Graham account. On cross -eXamina-
| ton Mr.. Gates was asked to state the
amount of the actual shortage minus
the sum of $4,000 which the de
Tense claims is wrongfully charged tC
Mr.. Graham The total thus obtained
shows Mr. Graham indebted to, The
state l9,730.83 whereas it has been ad
mitted that he has paid the state IL
excess of this amount, namely $19,
S3O.4S. In this connection, former At
torney General Barber made further
objections to the evidence of the re
payment, claiming that the restitution
was no exemption from the crime.
The defense restated their claim tina
there was no crime and that the prop
osition of the repayment was offere'
on the question of intent. This argu
ment ended with the admission of tn
testimony on behalf of the respondent
Judge Fred NJ Butler remarking tha
, the money might have been taken un
lawfully and still not criminally.' TIL
entire case hinges on the question o
intent.
: Deputy Auditor Jesse f. Joslyn wa
called for the purpose of testifying a
n to File No. 450l. He Unidentified Gel
r tain papers which he said were pal
8 of this file previous to December
4 1916, and another batch of voucher
. he identified as papers handed to hi
) by the respondent with instructions
A add to the file and give his accouI
h credit as of June 80, 1912, four yeal
). before.
Mr.. Joslyn told of changing the fl
- ures in the voucher column. making Il
! total $8,790.94 instead of SO, AZ. so. III
I. books, he said, showed the erasure al
- subsequent alteration. On cross-exam
= nation by Attorney Stickney, Mr.. 10
!, lyn said that all the vouchers placed
: the files showed the expenditure
money by Mr.. Graham in behalf
= the state and not one cent was draw
in Mr.. Graham s favor. The depu
auditor swore it was perfectly proper
credit the amount in question to t
n account of the respondent.