Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume], July 17, 1907, Page PAGE NINE, Image 9

About Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951

Image provided by: University of New Mexico

                
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.