The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1920-01-21
INDICTMENT
WAS RECITED
Completed This Forenoon
in the Trial Of Horace
F. Graham
H. G. BARBER MADE
OPENING STATEMENT
Jury Was Completed Yes
terday Afternoon in Wash
ington County Court


on the charge of embezzlement and lar
ceny of funds from the state. may be
started to-day, jury having been
drawn late yesterday afternoon and
statements made by opposing counsel.
After the drawing Of the jury, L. G,
Moody, clerk of the court, commenced
the reading of the indictment to the
jury. Some eight pages of this was
completed last evening before adjourn
menN and the remainder of it took con-
siderable time this morning. The in
dictment is composed Of lao counts Of
embezzlement and two counts of lar
oeny.
Following the reading of the indict-
ment, II. G.. Barber, who prepared the
case originally for trial, made a state
ment to the jury which. in substance,
showed that the state would contine it
self for the most part to the period be
tween April 30, 1913, and Jan. 5, 1917,
during which time he indicated the
state would try to show that there was
shortage in Mr.. Graham's accounts
of about $4,000, which the attorney di-
yided into As periods Mr.. Barber took
EdIH HtiiNN up 0EHui HlihNtbE AtAte
at times there was an underdraft IN
Mr. Grahams salary and at other times
an overdraft and that when the time
between the two. above dates had
elapsed there was about $4,000 over
draft, according to the statement.
While ex Attorney General Barber
was stating TO the jury the date when
Mr.. Graham took office as auditor in
1902. Attorney w. B. G, Stickney for
the defense interrupted to object to re-
marks about admission OF transactions
occurring Is years before the date of
the Indictment and facts he expected TO
prove that at present do not appear.
Attorney General Archibald took the
ground that while the date Mr.. Graham
took Office antedated the statute OF linn
itation, nevertheless they had right
to follow his official acts as bearing on
the question of intent.
Mr.. Barber concurred in what the at
torney general stated, but il was not
his intention to go into details, lin his
explanatory statement, Of the matters
objected TO- Mr.. Stickney withdrew his
objections and Mr.. Barber proceeded.
Mr.. Barber then called attention to
certain terms in the Indictment and
what the state expected to prove. He
gave the amounts of alleged overdrafts
from 1912 to January, 1917, which the
state expected to show as ss,657 10,
which, he said, were taken in such a
way as to amount to the crime of lar
ceny and which the state intended to
produce proof of in evidence. He ex-
planned certain drafts of April ~, 1915,
for 81 POO, and of Nov. ;, 1918. for
81 800, and charged ON the books to the
highway department, We're deposited in
the National bank in Newport to the
account of the respondent, and
the state expected to show the high
way commissioner had no knowledge Of
the orders Officials of the banks at
Newport, St. Johnsbury and Bethel
would be called, together with their
books.
One Of the interesting things about
the Investigations that have been made
of the state auditors office. during the
time that Mr.. Graham was in charge, is
that the figures do not agree. For in
stance, the amount found by the state
or by Mr.. Pratt is not like that found
by others. His sum is some over $780,
600, and Young & Company found s24,
755, while Mr.. Graham claims about
S20, 900 was due the state in settlement
with it as an outstanding account. He
has paid 10 the state treasurer, and has
Mr. Seott's receipt for. Sl9,ss2.4s and it
is understood that if there is any more
money needed TO pay for anything that
had not been accounted for, it is OBJ
There was an atmosphere of politics
about the courthouse Tuesday for most
of the day men who had been associat
ed with Mr. Graham and who had ,op
posed him during different epochs Of
recent political history Of the state
we're seen about the building. There
was intimation last evening that con
siderable of the political affairs of the
state in years gone by may creep into
the case if certain conditions develop
but that probably a great deal would
be done to keep this out OF the case.
The Drawing of the Jury.
There were IS jurymen examined out
OF the "a who responded to their names
as called during the morning session
Tuesday and they were excused or re-
ieeted for one cause or another, 10 of
them being rejected by the state or
In addition TO the men who were
Of Tuesday morning. the fol-
lowing jurymen were examined: A. w.
DAILY Of Montpelier had read about the
rsse in the newspapers. He had formed
and expressed an opinion. the latter
several times. He WAS excused.
George Willet of Berlin was exam
med He had read the newspaper ac-
counts and had formed an opinion so
strong that il would take considerable
evidence to overcome II. He was inter
Iogated by the court and then excused.
Thomas J. Ferris Of yoretown had
read about the case bat had not formed
an opinion from his reading. He knew
d no reason why he could not Try the
rase fairly on the evidence introduced.
He was seated
LYNN Brown Of Worcester had read
the papers hut had formed no opinion
a. TO the guilt Of the respondent He
was seated but was later rejected by
one Of the parties.
Pred =. Cram Of Roxbury had formed
IN opinion bui did not have that opin-
ton when examined because of what
had been said IN eourt during the das
Eie had heard the matter discussed hEit
aid mo- think he had ever expressed an
opiuion. He was seated.
y. + Badger of Miadlcsex vas nsNt