[Newspaper cutting?]
AN OLD MINT SUIT.
ACTION AGAINST THE BONDSMEN
OF A. 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 the 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 United States vs.
Andrew Woods Smyth, and the order
is to the effect that A. W. 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. Smyth was appointed superintendent
of the Mint by President Harrison
and assumed the duties of the office
about April 1, 1890. The sureties on his
bond were the late D.C. McCan [McCann?]
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 acquitted. 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 Wood Smyth and Edward
Conery [Connery?], 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 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 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 diligently 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 and when the case was on trial
before and was doubtless selected by the
government to take charge of the civil
cause owing to the 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.
