agreement that he should have $300 if
successful. Mr. Leatherbury was a notary, postmaster, and claim agent,
and acted as notary and general assistant to Thomas and the claimant,
who was employed at Leatherbury's house. In the month of July, 1876, the
same month the claim for pension was allowed, the woman Roberts was
indicted for larceny, the complaining witness being Mr. Leatherbury.
Shortly after the issue of the checks the woman disappeared, and it is
reported that certain indications suggested that both Leatherbury and
Thomas were not entirely ignorant of her whereabouts nor completely
disconnected with her disappearance. The checks were obtained from
Thomas by Leatherbury, he paying, as he alleges, to Thomas the fee of
$300 which had been agreed upon. The checks remained in Leatherbury's
possession until they were delivered by him to the special agent of the
Pension Bureau upon the investigation. He claimed in his deposition that
he considered that what money he had let the woman have and the goods
she had obtained at his store while she worked for him, and the $300
which he had advanced to Thomas, her agent, justified him in holding her
indebted to him in the sum of $600, and that he held the checks as
security for the same, admitting that there was still $700 in her favor,
written acknowledgment of which he had placed in the hands of his wife.
He further stated that rather than gain notoriety in the matter he would
return the checks to the special agent, but he trusted that the
Government would pay him the $600 which he had sunk in the transaction.

The woman testified that she did take some goods from Leatherbury at his
store at his suggestion, after the arrival of the checks and before she
left, about August 16, 1876, which purchases amounted to no more than
$100, and that he also advanced her $100; that he made no further
payment and wrote to her that he had to give up the checks, and that she
never indorsed the checks nor authorized anyone to do so.

Both Leatherbury and Thomas disclaimed any knowledge of the fraudulent
character of the claim; but the fraudulent claimant lived in the house
of one of them and he was assisting in procuring her claim to be
allowed, while the other made an unlawful agreement for a liberal
compensation for his services if the claim succeeded. The woman was
indicted at the instance of Leatherbury at about the time of the
issuance of the checks and fled, but if she is to be believe