The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1920-01-22
GRAHAM TRIAL
STARTED BUT IS
GOING SLOWLY
Hale X. Darling Makes State
ment for the Accused
ALL HE DID WAS LEGAL
Claim That He Had Right to Draw
Money and Charge It to Himself
and No Fraud Resulted

Montpelier, Jan. 21.-There was not
much Of interest to the general public
in the progress of the trial of ex-Gov.
H. F. Graham in Washington county
court today. This morning the read
ing of the indictment was completed
at 1850 o'clock and then former At
torney General II. G. Ba Der made his
opening statement 10 the jury of what
the State would try to show. This
was competed at noon time and dur
ing the early afternoon, Hale K. Darl
ing made the statement for the de-
fense. Benjamin n Gates, State auditor,
was the first witness and he had not
completed his ev dence, when the eve
ming recess took place.
Mr.. Darling in making his states
ment sa that Mr.. Graham had moth
ing to concede In this case. He called
attention to the indictment which
showed no c. edit had been given on
account charged to larceny OF $500
In June 1916, but Mr.. Barber in h 8
tatament said there was an over
draft in the sum of s2454.
Mr.. Darling explained to the jury
that balances were carried on the
books indicating that Mr.. Graham d d
not try to cover up anything and that
there had not been the slightest IN.
ant OF concealment. He sa d Mr..
Graham was waiting to obtain the
amount of the overdraft when he
mt out of Office Mr.. Grf/am's
figures we're sS.77541 against sS,657.-
10 as ella med by the State.
He added that Mr.. G aham acted in
right and was ready to meet the de-
mands when the amount was ascer-
tanned. He explained that the two or
ders amounting 20 $4,000 charged to
the highway department were for
money VIII ch had been prev ously ad-
vanced by the auditor from h s person
al account and that he drew the or
de to himself in settlement
Following the reading Of the indict.
ment. II. G.. Barber, who prepared the
case originally for trial. made state
ment To the jury which, in substance,
showed that the state would confine IT.
self for the most part to- the period be-
tween April 80, 1913, and Jan. 5, 1917,
during which time he indicated the
state would try to show that there was
shortage in Mr.. Grahams accounts
OF about $4,000, which the attorney di-
yided into As periods. Mr.. Barber took
each period up separately, showing
that at times there was an underdraft
in Mr. Graham's 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 10 the statement.
While e.tAttorney General Barber
was stating to the jury the date when
Mr. Graham took office as auditor in
1902, Attorney w. B. c. Stickney for
the defense interrupted to object to re-
marks about admission cf transactions
occurring 16 years before the date Of
the indictment and facts he expected
to prove that at present do not appear.
Acknowledgement Archibald took the
ground that while the date Mr.. Graham
took office antedated the statute of
nevertheless they had
right to follow his official acts as
bearing on the question of intent
Mr. Barber concurred In what the
attorney general stated, but it was
not his intention to go into details,
in his explanatory statement, of the
matters objected to. Mr.. Stickney
withdrew his objections and Mr.. Bar
Der 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 $S,657.1G
which, he said, were taken in such
way as to amount to the crime Of lar
ceny and which the state intended to