The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1920-01-28
GRAHAM CASE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED
Continued from first page)

which, if allowed, will bring the amour
paid by Mr.. Graham to $26,32S.
The following figures were given b,
+. s. Pratt of Brattleboro, the exper
for the state, who has conducted in
vestigations connected with the stat,
auditors Office since 1885,
Feb. rs, 1918, overdraft, Sl,54l.I9l
May 81, 1913, underdraft, S4l2.8g; Aug
81, 1913, oyerdraft, $5e0.45; Nov. 80
1913, underdraft, S47S.45; Feb. %, 1914
underdraft, Sl054s; May 81, 1914, un
derdraft, S53.62; Aug. 81, 1914, under
draft, Sl65.l8; Nov. 30, 1914, over,
| draft, S664.26; Jan. 81, 1918, overdraft
S3l5l3. The total overdraft after the
underdrafts had been subtracted as
shown above was Sl,S05.4l.
After that time the balances were
taken by months instead of quarterly
and these figures read as follows: Feb
ruary, IDA, underdraft, $347 40; March,
underdraft, $98.5l; April, overdraft,
S94S.07 this included the 81 200 high
| way department voucher May, un-
derdraft, S647l; June, underdraft,
S57i.ll; July, overdraft, S223.62; Au-
gust, overdraft, S354.22; September,
overdraft, S76007; October, underdraft,
| S202.47; November, overdraft, S2,496.5S
| (which included 81 800 highway vouch-
err; December, overdraft, Sll3.l5; Jan
uary, 1916, overdraft, sill73; Febru-
airy, overdraft, $339.l5; March, under
draft, $500; April, underdraft, $4460;
May, underdraft, se4.9l; June, over
draft, S2454; July, overdraft, S49S.25;
August, overdraft, s399.34; September,
underdraft, 1928; October, overdraft,
S226.S3; November, overdraft, $lS4.6S;
December and January to the 7th, over
draft, $92o6s.
These figures show that $50, 100 or
ders had been drawn in that period of
time and that the vouchers presented
amounted to S32,0Tl7l, leaving an
oyerdraft of s7,02s.29.
Then Mr.. Pratt started to 90 through
the figures between October, 1909, and
April 30, 1913, duplicating the testi-
mony that Mr.. Gates presented Mon
day afternoon; but the defense in
quired into the reason for this, stating
that there was no use in spending the
peoples money on a proposition of that
nature and that if ii was only used for
the same purpose as that used Monday
they would concede the figures were
accurate and would admit them subject
to the exceptions stated similarly Mon.
day.
II. G. Barber stated that he wanted |
those read into the records, which would |
have meant another half days work |
probably. The defense prevailed and |
the court directed that the amount be |
submitted to the reporter to be written |
in so that balance sheet which the |
state had prepared was filed This
shows all that has been covered in this |
week as far as the sums of money are
There have been copies
enough prepared so that all of the Jury
men and court officials had a copy.
These figures total nearly as Il
hey did Monday to sl9,40S, except
ng that Mr.. Gates and Mr.. Pratt's
figures vary little, namely, in the
iscal year Of 1910, where there is 500
Inference, and April 80, 1918, where
here is a difference of about $50. The
ne, 4os.29 added to the overdraft given
Ibove makes a total of see, 436. 5s, III
which the state claims was overdrawn
nut IL also adds S564.Ss, which it claims
vas an overdraft in the Greensboro H
Dad job, making the grand total s27,-
Oh 20.
Case May Hinge on Graham's Intent I
Probably one of the most important :
ecisions that will occur during the !
rial was that made Tuesday when
Judge Butler ruled that the money al. \
eyed to have been taken by Mr.. Ora \
am might have been taken unlawfully u
ut might not have been taken Grim /,
rally, so that the case now hinges on 6
ltent.
During the afternoon there was a
nightly argument between the state :.
nd Mr.. Stiekney over the admission /,
certain evidence relative to securing {,
irther testimony, on cross examine. \
on, from J. +. Joslyn upon the file
'0l, which includes the unapproved Il
Duchers of the Greensboro job. The
ate was eontending that Mr.. Graham .,
'uld not have permitted the money TO
, used as il was, while the defense y,
as arguing against this matter but s
r. Stickney suddenly closed the argu- ii
ent between counsel by stating a SUI 81
eme court decision, which he said m
e defense claimed In that respect that hi
e auditors judgment could not be
lestioned because the supreme court N
Vermont had decided in the Howard 60
Sc that when he had passed judg.
ent on matter left to his discretion, he
e question cannot be again opened. m
During the afternoon Benjamin Gates hi
rs on the stand most OF the time, ha
fitting back and forth between direct N
d cross examination, first. one side
en- the other asking a question. The nc
tense made strong effort to secure wi
stimony as to why the highway ou
uchers of $1,000 and 81 800 were not Of
/ as a credit TO Mr. Graham. Some
orders which were left out earlier in
e trial by the state were introduced, :
/. Stickney suggesting to the state
At they ought to introduce them be-
-e Mr.. Gates left the stand They
re for amounts around 500 each II
Deputy Auditor JOslyn on Stand /
Jesse Il. Joslyn, deputy state audi.
:, was called at 2;l0 o'clock. He had
IN emploved in office since April III