Newspaper Page Text
SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN.
PAGE NINE. REFEREE'S REPORT IN BURSUM CASE (Continued from Page One.) or Bearer," endorsed and cashed by H. 0. Bursum find amount retained by H. 0. Bursum without the. knowledge or consent of said Donovan, as per his affidavit dated January ' C, 190G, $400.75. (8) Amount cf G. W. Bond & Brothers, check No. 209, August 28, 1899, not charged on cash book, $G77.23. (9) Amounts due by individuals, but not included in statement of H. O. Bursum (Exhibit G) showing balances due the penitentiary at date of his retirement, April 12, 1900, $9,894.58. Corrected amount per Exhibit "H", $14,129.24; less items included in the $108.25 shortage, $07.25; total $14, 001.99. H. O. Bursum statement (Exhibit G), $4,107.41. (10) Amount of douDie creau ror freight on brick machinery shown on cash book, page 10, September 22, 1900, and also in contingent fund Sep tember 25, 1899, per journal, page 11, $437.48. (11) Amount credited to M. R. Otero, Uctober 5, 1904, on'cash book, page 22, as $x00; should be $140. This ' $40 h shown on journal, page No. 44 ns r rebate on amount due by Mr. .OUro, $40. (12) Amount due for Smith Prem ier typewriter No. 4-22792, purchased per voucher No. 300, July 30. 1901,"and in exchange for a Smith Premier No. 1-13C02, the former number cannot be located. $92.25. Amount forwarded, $13,099.98. Amount brought forward, $13,099.98. (13) Amount of check, Anson & Holman, January 2C, 1903, not entered on cash book, but entered on journal page No. 388 and then erased, $200.00. (14) Amount of double credit on payment to Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., per credit through contingent fund on Journal, page No. 211, October 25, 1901, $38.72. And Vou. No. 316, War. No 1649 November 29, 1901, $21.82; and Vou. No. 300, War. No. 1048, No vember 29, 1901, $1G.90; total $38.72. (15) Amount paid for one whim and wire rope Vou. No. 359, June, 1903. favor Hendrie & Bolthoff, $lll!G2; freight paid per journal, page No. 401, $10.56; total, $122.18. (16) Amount of freight claimed to have been paid per cash book page No 10, September 4, 1900, $250; and page No. 11, October 16, 1900, $1.15; total $365.00. No record of freight bills and until proper receipt u uC produced this amount correctly stands as a debit to H. O, Bursum. Total, $14,425.88, . Item No 1. "Ten thousand vitrified brick in A. T. & S. P. car No. This is the car of brick in which it is stated in the former report as having been shipped to H. O. Bursum at Albuquerque, February 7, 1905, and no payments shown for same in rec ords turned over by Mr. Bursum. This is absolutely incorrect, v.ad the record as to this transaction in the books of Mr. Bursum and which were in possession of the examiner is perfectly plain. This car was invoiced to E. E. Carahan and draft with bill of lading attached sent to the bank of Commerce at Albuquerque and Mr. Carnahan notified. Mr. Carnahan called at the bank, paid the draft, re ceived his bill of lading and got his car of brick and the same was. prop erly charged to him on his account and he received credit for his payment. Not only in this transaction was included this particular car, but on the follow ing day the 8th of February, an ad ditional car went forward (see invoice No. 2199), for which an additional hundred dollars was charged, and when paying his drafts and taking up his bills of lading he included this secend car; remittance was made by the bank of. the $200 thus collected and, as stated above, Mr. Carnahan received his credit on the books of the penitentiary as shown on journal page 453, and the $200 thus received was nromDtly deposited with the Ter ritorial Treasurer to the credit of the convicts' earning fund. The follow ing is a copy of the invoice in ques tion: "Santa Fe, N. M., Feb. 7, 1905. "Invoice No. 2198. "E. E. Carnahan,' "Albuquerque, N. Mex., "To the New, Mexico Penitentiary, Dr., "H. Q. Bursum, Superintendent. '"1905 "Feb. 7. For 10,000 common pavers at $10.00.:.. $100.00 "A. T. & S. F. car No. 77870. "Draft attached to Mil of lading." Item No. 2. "Receipts on Journal and not on cash book, $168.45." In making my statement of charges against Mr. Bursum for cash received I have not only charged him ''of. this amount, but with ( about $32,000.00 more. . ' ' ' . Item No. 3. "Remittance of May 26, 1899, belonging to E. H. Bergman and credited to H. O. Bursum on cash book, page 10, $700." Mr. Bergman owed this, amount of money the same as any other individ ual who was indebted to the peniten tiary and his account was in fact whether it-waa treated so or hot, one of the bills receivable turned over to Mr. Bursum on taking charge. When paid by Mr. Bergman, if. an account was kept with him he should have re ceived .credit on the books of the pen itentiary and , Mr. .Bursum properly charged with that amount of money. It is a fact, however, that as soon as this money was received, it '.vas promptly deposited with the Territor ial Treasurer to the credit of the con victs' earning! fund as is shown by Territorial Treasurer's receipt No. 339 and Mr. Bursum was entitled to credit and it makes no difference as to whether or not any entries were made on the penitentiary books as long as this money was turned into the Ter ritorial Treasury. In July, 1900, when Mr. Bursum voluntarily turned in the $1,727 it included this $700 (see treas urer's receipt No. 904). He did this in error as it can be readily seen that the sum of $1,400 has actually found its way into the Territorial Treasury and placed to the credit of convicts' earnings by that official to pay one account of $700. ' While the item of $1,027 of Windsor was not included in the demand, it was a similar transaction. Mr. Wind sor is a contractor in Santa Fe, and owed the penitentiary an account. Mr. Bursum personally collected from Mr. Windsor $1,027. failed to credit Mr. Windsor upon the books of the Peni tentiary, but turned the money over to the Territorial Treasurer for the credit of' the convicts' earnings fund and then again in July, 1900, at the same time he turned in the Bergman $700 turned over to the treasurer $1, 027 more, making an actual cash re ceipt by the Territorial Treasurer of $2,054 to pay an account of only $1, 027. Item No. 4. "Amount turned over to H. O. Bursum to pay bill to Winters urocery company, wnicn Dill was not paid and the money never turned over to the incoming super intendent for disbursement." This was an improper charge against Mr. Bursum as the peniten tiary had no interest whatever in this matter; this was money that belonged to the convicts for which supplies had been purchased, the account charged to Mr. Bursum personally and he per sonally was" responsible for same. A' quick as he received statement from the Winters Grocery Company he promptly paid same. During the whole time that he was superintend ent, convicts 'would deposit with him such moneys as they might earn from the sale of little articles which they had manufactured, an account was kept with each and such supplies as they would wish to purchase would be bought and for the sake of conven ience charged to Mr. Bursum. Item No. 5. "Warrant No. 2012, De cember 9, 1902, favor H. O. Bursum withdrawing balance In general maintenance fund, fifty-third fiscal year and not accounted for, $152.27.' This warrant was accounted for by bein deposited with the Territorial Treasurer together with other moneys under date of December 9, 1902, Treas urer's receipt No. 585. The warrant in question was never cashed by Mr. Bursum. but the identical warrant so drawn was re-deposited and simply amounted to a transfer of this amount from the general maintenance fund to the convicts' earnings fund. In ex planatlon as to why this was done, will sav that the Territorial fiscal year ends November 30 and any bal ances left unused in any funds are reported by the Auditor as a surplus in .such funds and in this case hafl this money not been drawn the peni tentiary would have failed to have re ceived the full benefit of appropria- tion made by the Legislature for that year. By drawing same from the maintenance fund and placing the same amount in the convicts' earning account, which 1.3 not subject to the Auditor with reference to closing at the end of the fiscal year and report ing any balance that might be in that fund as a surplus, saved this amount to the penitentiary. As a large amount of the expenditures from the convicts' earnings fund i3 applied in paying maintenance accounts proper, the placing of this money in the convicts' earnings account, it would take the course for which it was appropriated. Item No. 6. "Warrant No. 2401, No vember 30, 1903, favor H. O. Bur f sum, withdrawing balance in gen eral maintenance fund, fifty-fourth fiscal year and not accounted for, $861.92." This is exactly a similar transac tion to No. 5 and the same explana tion given No. 5 applies, except that dates are different This warrant was drawn on November 30, 1903, was not cashed but re-deposited with the Treasurer on December 1, 1903, with other moneys and is included in Treasurer's receipt No. 655. ; Item No. 7.' "Warrant No. 3138, Janu ary 8, 190G, drawn in favor of Jack Dbnovan or bearer, endorsed and cashed by H. O. Bursum and - amount retained by H. O. Bursum without the knowledge or consent of said Donovan as per his affidavit dated January 6, 1906, $400.75." This was an improper charge as the penitentiary was in no way interested in this account. Mr. Donovan was not looking to the penitentiary for any sal ary or wages that might be due him, but was looking to H. O. Bursum. A full explanation of this matter is given in the testimony taken before this referee : and; subscribed by Mr. Donovan and which testimony shows that not only this $400.75, but addi tional moneys had been previously re ceived by Donovan on advances on ac count! of wages made by H. " O. Bur sum and that this amount and more was due to Bursum from Donovan and it was pertectly right and proper for Mr. Bursum to cash this warrant, Following is a full copy of Mr. Don-1 gave me $100.00 and subsequently he By rebates and errors and ovan s testimonv: 'na n mo iho lmionno tArnnn , rl scminta 9m9 " - i .su.iuuwt' lug unuij.m, s - " . - On the 2Cth day of June, A. D. 1907,' which was the difference between the 'By freljhts deducted acct. I caused to appear before me at my office in the Capitol Building at Santa Fe, New Mexico, at the hour of 10 o'clock, a. m., Jack Donovan, for the purpose cf examination with refer ence to his knowledge in connection with the investigation of the New Mexico penitentiary, and at the hour and place mentioned, the said Jack Donovan being present, accompanied by his counsel, J. P. Victory, Esq., wa3 by me first duly sworn and testified as follows: (Signed) C. V. SAFFORD, Referee. "JACK" DONOVAN TELLS ABOUT THAT "AFFIDAVIT." duly Jack Donovan, being first sworn, deposes as follows: ., Examination by Referee: Q. Mr. Donovan, please state your name, age and residence. A. I could not state my age for I don't know about fifty years old. John Donovan, residence Santa Fe. - Q. Mr. Donovan, from May 1, 1903, to October 1, 1903, how were you em ployed? 'A. I was employed in the moun tains, prospecting for coal. Q. By whom were you employed? A. By Mr. H. O. Bursum, superin tendent of the penitentiary. Q. What wages did he agree to pay you? . A. Three dollars per day. Q. From May 1, 1901, to October 1. 1903, is about five months, and counting thirty days to the month would make one hundred and fifty days, and at three dollars per day you would be entitled for your ser vices the sum of $450.00. Is that cor rect? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then from October 1, 1903, to July 1, 1905, how were you employed? A. I was employed as foreman in the quarry, getting out clay and lime rock. Q. You were at this time in the employ of H. O. Bursum, superintend ent? . , A. Yes, sir. time that I worked at $60.00 per month material sold f. o. b. cars and the rate at which . I worked as I other points than Santa Fe 1,060.17 agreed between, myself and Mr. Bur- By services rendered and sum as testified to above. material purchased and Q. This $409.00 then that you have I allowed as off-set 1,252.53 received since Mr. Bursum went out By bills receivable 10,605.02 of the penitentiary has been paid to you personally by Mr. Bursum and not on a warrant issued from the peniten tiary? A. Yes, he paid me In cash and by his own check. Total $90,321.15 This statement is significant, and I WlSh VOlir honor tn fqrefnl1v KnnclHnr w- Ana at tnis time you have been same. Nowhere in the former report fully paid, either in check of Mr. Bur-' is a statement made of the gross sum cash out of the cash drawer or amount of materials sold and it was by cash given you personally by Mr. impossible to make a correct one on Bursum or by voucher for all your account of errors and omissions in services rendered to the penitentiary . charging up materials sold. As to wuui may i rjU,5. to April 13, 1900. Credits tn material Inclusive, and the penitentiary or Mr Bursum as superintendent does not owe you anything? A. No, sir; Mr. Bursum does not owe me anything, neither does the penitentiary for services during that time. , Q. Mr. Donovan, you were asked in an affidavit which is purported to have been signed by you in regard to a account on page 2 of former report "Through sales of brick, lime, etc., appears $78,400.14." This amount is purported to be taken from "Re-written cash book," but in the report no statement is made as to what amount the former examiner found to be the correct amount. You will notice on this statement above I charge Mr. Bursum with receipts of $80,429.17 received on account of sale vuiHHUT wnicn wa3 vouciier No. 58 for of materials $1,9C9.03 In cash more $400.75 which Is dated January 6, 1900, than shown bv figures In former re which was cashed by Mr. H. O. Bur- port. 'As to rebates on pages 43 to sum. Please explain how Mr. Bursum 47 of former report a statement is came to cash that warrant? (made attempting to show gross Hi;tIh:'Iask?,dMr:Bui:!Uniabout amounts of rebate and which aggre- f j".iu iie saiu tnai is t.ne money i wliich you have drawn out of the I cash drawer In $5 and $10 and small amounts and that he could not get the money back in any way only to draw a warrant in my name. That is what he told me. Q. Is it or is It not a fact that you had drawn that amount and that he was entitled to reimburse himself by cashing your warrant? A. Certainly I had drawn the money, but I did not keep an exact memorandum of the amounts, J)ut it was about that amount, and he was entitled to cash a warrant to reim burse himself. Q.' I notice from your affidavit that the impression would be conveyed from its reading that a final settle- Q. At what wages were you, em-;ment of your accounts was made by ployed during that period? 'you with Mr. Bursum personally on A.- At seventy-five dollars per month. Q. From October 1, 1903, to July 1, 1905, is one year and nine months, is it not? And at seventy-five dollars per month you would be entitled to pay for twenty-one months, which fig ure is $1,575.00. Is that the amount you claim for your services for that period? A. Yes, sir. Q, From July 1, 1905, to April 12, 1906, how were you employed? . A. As foreman in the clay bank and quarry, but my wages were re duced to sixty dollars per month. Q. From July 1, 1905, to April 12, 1900, is nine months and a third is it not? A. Yes: it is nine months and twelve days. Q. And at sixty dollars per month, you would be entitled for this time to the sum of $564.00? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, according to the above figures, from May 1. 1903, the date you commenced work for Mr. Bursum as superintendent of the penitentiary, up to the 12th day of April, 1906, when he left the penitentiary, you would he entitled for services rendered to the sum of $2,589.00? A. Yes, sir; that's right. Q. During all this time that you were pmnloved bv Mr. Bursum as 3tated above, were you paid monthly A. No, sir Q. Then you were not on a regular pay-roll? A. No, sir. Q. How did you draw your salary? A. I drew my money just as wanted it, $5, $10, $15, $20, $25 or $50 cash out of the cash drawer, ana sometimes I drew it by voucher. Q. Why did you draw your money in thi3 way? , A. Because I left it in the hands ol Mr. Bursum for safe-keeping and only drew it as I needed it. ' Q. Did Mr. Bursum ever give you his personal check? A. Yes, on one or two occasions that I remember of. Q. Mr. Bursum. had no personal in terest in your salary directly or in directly; did he or not? , A. Why, no. Q. At the time Mr. Bursum left the penitentiary there was quite a balance due you, was there not? . A. Yes, sir. , Q. And did you have a settlement with Mr. W. D. Newcomb, who was acting as clerk there at the peniten tiary? , ' A. Yes, he made up my account, and he said there is so many hundred dollars coming to me, and I asked if the 10th of April, -1906; state whethei or not such settlement was or was not made by ycu personally with Mr. Bur sum at that time, or whether it was made with Mr. Newcomb, book keeper? A. It was made with Mr. Newcomb and not with Mr. Bursum and then really a settlement was not made, but Mr. Newcomb simply looked over the account and gave me the amount, which I believed to be about $400.00 short and when I saw Mr. Bursum he corrected this and the mistake oc curred by figuring the wrong rate of salary. Q. Then, if I understand you. the matter of dispute of some $400.00 be tween you and the New Mexico pen! tentiary was purely a mistake caused by Mr. Newcomb and rectified by Mr, Bursum? A. Yes, sir; that is right. Q. At one time,, Mr. Donovan, you gave Mr.'R. C. Gortner an order for fifty dollars, and in your final settle ment you paid a bill of $49.00 for ma terial charged to you and both of these amounts were deducted from what was coming to you, were they not? A. Yes, sir. (Signed) JOHN DONOVAN. After the said witness had testified as above, his testimony was read over by me to him and he subscribed the same and again swore the same to be true. - (Signed) C. V. SAFFORD, Referee. EXPLANATIONS BY REFEREE Or GLARING DISCREPANCIES. Item No. 8. "Amount of G. W. Bond and Brothers check No. 207, August 28, 1899,, not charged on cash book, $677.23." This check, while not appearing on the cash book, was received by H. O. Bursum and turned over to the Ter ritorial Treasurer, August 30, 1899, two days after its date, and is covered by Treasurer's receipt No. 355 of that date. Should Mr. Bursum pay same again as demanded it would be paying the account a second time as in the case of item No. 3 and the following mention cf the Windser transaction. Item No. 9. "Amounts due by Indi viduals, but not included in state ment of H. O. Bursum (Exhibit G) showing balances due the peniten tiary at date of his retirement, April 12, 1900, $9,894.58; corrected amount per Exhibit "H", $14,129.24; less items included in the $168.25 shortage; total, $14,061.99." In the first place this is not a proper charge, as this amount is supposed to represent the aggregate amount or bills receivable turned over to the in- cominK superintendent and In the see- that was all; I was satisfied that ond piace the,e amounts are not cor rect by reasons of errors made when there, had been a mistake made in my account, but he gave me a voucher for the amount that he claimed was due me. And I asked him at what rate, be figured my account at, and he said sixty dollars per month. I asked him who authorized him to figure up my accounts at sixty dollars per month, ' and be said Mr. Bursum. Mr. Bursum was away at -the time and I would not go to him. Immediately on . Mr. Bursum's re turn I saw "him at the Claire Hotel and told him about the mistake and he told me that my salary should have been figured at $75.00 per month, in stead of $60.00 and that it was Mr. Newcomb's mistake, and that he reproducing the individual ledger as will be shown later. As amounts claimed to have been misappropriated or unaccounted for were from the material accounts, all transactions for the sale of material and payments for same by individuals purchasing, have been very carefully checked, item by item, as shown in de tail in main portion of report and the following is a summary of the mater ial account: H. O. Bursum in account with ma terial sold during term of office and tor which he was accountable: . To material Bold.....,.:.... $96,321.15 gate $1,144.39. This statement is not classified and is absolutely incorrect. From .this source Bursum is entitled to credit to amount as shown in above statement $5,226.90, and Is made up of amounts as appear in detail throughout my report, showing dates and amounts, and posted to the ind' vidtial account of parties entitle : thereto. A.i to bills receivable in f demand based on the former rer and Included in the demand, amount cf bills receivable Is fix $14,001.99, while I find due fron : viduals the sum of $10,665.0 which is itemized and shows o 144 ,to 149 of my report. Whl" nv. Mr. Bursum about the sanv : . of "paper credits" on the n? count former report bills - $14,001.99, and rebates il . ! $15,200.38 my figures, V i . able $10,065.02, rebate it: , ... , $15,891.98, or by my fig act, $C95.60 more; ho' him in actual cash as u ceived $1,909.03 more ui former figures of report, and lc of additional "paper credits given me, $695.60, leaves a net debit charge to Mr. Bursum in cash of $1,273.43 more than claimed by the. former re port. 1 make these comparisons to call at tention to the incorrectness of figures In former report and in order to still further demonstrate that tact i can attention a little further on to some of the errors made when compiling those figures. In this Instance I have the original figures, made by the party who com piled the report, and on which was based the amounts of bills receivable and have something tangible "to g3 against." I refer to his reproduced in dividual ledger and his balance sheet, or rather his statement of the amounts due by individuals, as it is not a balance sheet and I might state that I can find no evidence that one was taken at any stage of former in vestigation. As to the differences be tween the figures as shown by this in dividual ledger and on which the fig ures in the report were based and my own figures, I have used every means possible to meet the issue squarely and to furnish to your honor a state ment in thl3 respect that could not be questioned. To this end I tried to reconcile these differences with the party who made the former report, who is a resident of Colorado. This gentleman dropped into Santa Fe on private business and immediately af ter I learned of his presence in the city, I called upon him and stated that in going over these Individual ac counts, I differed very materially from his figures and requested that he give me a few hours and that we together reconcile our differences. This he ab solutely refused to do and I issued a subpoena and forced, him to appear and when before me he again refused to enter into the matter at all, al though acknowledging the compila tion of this individual ledger " and statement. For failure to do this he gave excuses as set forth in the testi mony of Mr. FrancisM. McMahon, the gentleman in question. As to this in dividual ledger I want it understood that not one original figure made by former examiner had been changed in any particular. These original figures are in ink with the exception of foot ings and a few notations, being in pen cil. The additional entries, referred to in his testimony, were made by me at the bottom of accounts, showing errors in' computations, failure to make proper charges and credits or erroneous charges and credits made as the case might be. I have not taken herfe the time or space to record all suoh entries or omission of entries, as to do so sim ply takes up space without accom plishing any actual benefit., How ever, the following 1 is a partial list and sufficient to show the unreliabil ity of the former report: voice 1158, $11.50; invoice 1102, G $12.50; invoice 1109. $12.50: invoice 1175, $6.25; invoice 1177, $6.25; in voice 1181, $7.81; invoice 1189, $7.81; invoice 1195, $8.75; invoice 1204. $7.81; invoice 1222, $14; a total of $135.18; debits of which no account was taken. On the other hand fail ure to credit item of $51.50, cash pay ment. Balance in this account as shown by former statement, $033.72; correct balance, $717.40. Account of Max. Frost: Error failure to charge invoice 1209, $17.70, and inycice 1219, $9.40; bal ance shown by former report, $428.82; correct balance, $455.92. Since August 30 last Mr. Frost has settled his ac count by paying $238.87, and by an account of the New Mexican Printing Company allowed against the peniten tiary for printing and material amounting to $189.95. In this settle ment the invoices above referred to were not taken into account. Account cf C. W. Dudrow: Balance shown by former report, $198.G4; to this should be added the following invoices not charged, and which were not taken into account when making up Mr. Dudrow's state ment. Invoice No. 1042, $1.50; invoice 1015, $8.25; invoice 1023, $1.00; in voice 1023, $1.50; invoice 10G4, $3.13; invoice 1093, $3.13; invoice 1223, 50c; Invoice 1227, $1.25; making a total of $20.70 not charged. Under date of August 17, 1890, error by failure to credit the amount of $8.80 as an off set; also in the same year, an off-set of $04.15. Under date of Mav 9 iw a 'uither '; ; ; v.... ' ' ,'ie.fac ;. .". ..i.nt c ?;,: ; iir-.. K . v.-; . M'MAHON REPORT INCOMPLETE .AND GROSSLY UNRELIABLE. would rectify it, and Mr. Bursum then By cash received. Account of J. H. Sloan Error in failing to charge invoice j ..... uuuruWs correct, . nstead of $198.04, which ted to collect and which ,o pay. , of Manuel Baca: ; shown by report, $103,88; failure to charge back $18.05, of check given to apply on h . , and which check returned un .nd consequently that amount 1 be added to Mr. Baca's bill, ng the amount due from his Aug 30th last, $122.53. lCcount of Juan Ortiz: Balance shown by report, $8.88; to rror in invoice 2022, $1.50, and in ioice 242, $7.00, making an additional charge cf $8.50 and by errors in fail ing to credit error in charging in voice 1445. $5.00; invoice 2067, $2.40; and by. further error to credit cash payment of January 10, 1902, making a total credit of $14.40, which was not taken Into account and leaving a bal ance due by Mr. Ortiz to the peniten tiary on August 30 last of $2.98, in stead of $8.88. Account of F. A. Manzanares: Balance shown by report to be due of $52.00; error in failing to credit amount of freight bill of a like amount and which balances Mr. Manzanares' account to a cent. This account of Mr. Manzanares was for a car of ma terial sold f. o. b. Las Vegas, and re mitting payment for same he remitted cash and freight bil! to cover the amount charged him. Account of T. P. Gable: Amount of balance shown to be due, $2.00; error by not charging invoice 1050; correct amount of balance due August 30 last, $7.00. Account Onderdonk Live Stock Company: Amount of balance shown to be due, $4.00; error by failure to credit cash payment made December 14, 1901; account balanced. Account of C. L. Bishop: Balance shown to be due by report, $9.10; error in failing to credit cash payment made September 23, 1901, of $8.40. It appears that Mr. Bishop is still indebted to the penitentiary to the extent of 70c. Account of Dr. Harroun : Balance shown to be due by report, $81.50; error to credit a like amount for professional services rendered and for which bill was rendered August 23, 1985," and Dr. ' Harroun's account was balanced on August, 30. Account of Antonio Alarid: Balance shown by report to be $29.40; by error in failing to charge invoice No.-1129, $8.00; invoice 1157, $2.00; invoice 1172, $3.20; and invoice 1210, $15.00; making a total debit of of $28.20 left oft this account and Mr. Alarid's balance should have been August 30 last, $57.50.. Account of M E. Church: Amount of balance shown by report, to be $221.23; error in failing to charge invoice No. 1050, $25.69; Cor rect balance August 30, $246.92. Account of St John and Barnes: Balance shown In report $43.50; er ror in drawing off balance, $5.45; cor rect amount due August 30 last, $48.95. ' Account of A. Lucero: Balance shown to be due by report, $48.10; this account should be cred ited by $10.50, cash paid March 22, 1904, leaving correct amount of bal ance, $37.60. Account of H. P. Brown: Amount of balance shown, $647.42; failure to charge invoice No. 1218, $165.00; error by failure of credit cash payment December 13, 1902, $75.40, and a further credit of $571.02, which Is not shown by the books, but for which I am able to furnish proof pos itive of its payment and have there fore credited Mr. Brown with this ad ditional amount and leaving a balance .$80,429.17 No. 1152, $35; invoice 1153, $5; in-, due to the .penitentiary from Mr.