AN OLD MINT SUIT
ACTION AGAINST THE BONDSMEN
OF A.W. [Andrew?] W. SMYTH
The Loss of $25,000 by a Fire in
the Cashier's Vault in 1893 Recalled
- Defendants Ordered to Appear in Court
on May 29 Next.
An order was entered in the United
States Circuit Court yesterday that will
revive interest in a case that attracted
much attention five or six years ago. The
action was taken on motion of ex-United
States District Attorney F. B. Earhart
in the case of the United States vs
Andrew Woods Smyth, and the order is
to the effect that A. W. [Andrew Woods?]
Smyth, together with counsel for other
defendants, be notified to appear in court
on Monday, May 29. District Attorney
Gurley does not appear in the case, as he
is the attorney for the defendant, Smyth,
in other litigation.
The suit grows out of the loss of $25,000,
which was burned by a fire which occurred
in the cashier's vault in the Mint in 1893.
The cause of the fire was a matter of
controversy and in all probability the
case will turn largely, if not entirely,
upon this point, or at least upon the
question of responsibility for its origin.
Another point that may come up is
whether there is any loss to the government
where treasury notes have been actually
consumed by fire.
A. W. [Andrew Woods?] Smyth was appointed
superintendent of the Mint by President Harrison
and assumed the duties of the office
about April 1, 1990. The sureties on his
bond were the late D. C. Mc Cann and the
late Edward Conery [Connery?]. Some time during
the year 1893 a fire occurred in the
cashier's vault after it had been closed
in the afternoon by the cashier. Nothing
was known of the fire until the vault was
opened at the usual hour the next morning,
when it was discovered that there
had been a blaze and that about $25,000
in bills had been destroyed. The
superintendent of the mint held the cashier,
James M. Dowling, responsible for the
loss. Dowling maintained that he was in
no way to blame for the loss; that the
origin of the fire was accidental and
beyond his control.
THe outcome of this feature of the
controversy was that Dowling was indicted
by the United States grand jury and
placed on trial. He was aquitted. The
government then took steps to recover the
loss from the bondsmen of the superintendent
and began a civil action on Aug.
7, 1894.
The petition of the government alleges
that Andrew Woods Smyth and Edward
Conery, together with the succession of
David Chambers McCan [McCann?] and the
succession of his widow in community, Mrs.
Hester Calloway, and their surviving
heirs, are jointly indebted to the United
States in the sum of $25,000 with interest
at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from
April 1, 1893. The fact is then recited
that Smyth was appointed superintendent
of the Mint on the 20th of December, 1889,
and that by virtue of this appointment
he made a bond, which was signed on
March 18, 1890, with Edward Conery [Connery?]
and D. C. McCan [McCann?] as sureties; that Smyth
failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of said bond; that he did not
faithfully and dilligently perform the duties of
the office, and that he did not account
for and pay over to the government all
balances of money by him received for
disbursement in the line of his official
duties, and for gold and silver bullion
received by him; that according to the
proper accounting officers of the government
the balance found to be due was
$25,000. It is therefore asked that the
bond be forfeited and the principal and
his sureties be condemned in solido to pay
the amount.
Since the suit was filed Edward Conery
[Connery?] has died and the action will
therefore be against the heirs of the two
sureties.
Hon. F. B. Earhart was the prosecuting
officer when the case was on trial before
and was doubtless selected by the
government to take charge of the civil
cause owing to his familiarity with the
details.
The order of the court entered
yesterday stated that Smyth was at the St.
Charles Hotel, but the clerks of the hotel
said last night that he had not been there.
