The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-08-18

Tax PnRNix BANK TRALs.--The correspondent
OF the Boston Post says, Of the proceedings OF Tues
day, the eighth day of this trial:-
For the first time duing the trial. there has
thing OF rush to get into the court house. The aoes,
on the right left OF the jury formed beautiful
and striking contrast to the function aries Of
law, who were raised up between them, ike small
clump Of stunted oaks in a daisy field.
Alter the ladies', the remains Of bank admi ted,
and the reporters were permitted follow IN si"ge file,
like mourners hired for the pu then the
jury followed by the counsel and defendants heir
friends Then came strangers from the SOUTH ruscsns
here for the benefit OF their health and mall the
reign people OF the village, by very small representa-
ton for, ia TRUTH the Concoraians to very lit
tie about the case. The bank they know is dcsd but
who killed 1t they say they can't find out from the
evidence.
BY ,equest of counsel, Mr. DETER put In written
statement concerning Wymans person history, from
which it appeared that he born In Charlestown
March 9TH 1901 and has ever sin lived there that he
was married in Cnarestown in 1888. At the time &C
ceped the situation Of cashier in the Phenix ank he
was cashier OF the Mddesex Bank, and also had re
ceived the appointment OF teller OF the Market Bank
The Hon. CHARLES THOMPSON testified that he bro
ther-inaw to Wyman, and had known him in 1896. His
siuess and prudent living His accumulations oil pro
perty have been small and raduai, and kne
him DE engaged in any lation He has borne the
character and maintained the department OF honest
and true man.
EDWARD RUSSELL, late book Keeper of the Phenix
Bank testified that very easy mat for mistakes
to in the tellers account in the Phenx BANK.
known six hundred checks to be paid the counter
in one day
At the urgent request OF Mr.. Huntington, Mr.. Wells
his colleague, was allowed to put in law, and
additional authorities defining and the
offence OF embezzlement. He commenced by quoting the
following dehntion given by Noah Webster in his great
die ionary-
"Em6esslement-To appropriate fraudulently to ones
own use what IS entrusted to ones care and manage
ment 1t differs from stealing and rob berry in thisthat
the latter implies the wrongful taking Of anoner goods
but embezzlemest implies the wrongful appropriation and
OF what came into possession by right It is
common Tor entrusted with public money to embez
zie it."
The reading vfthe last member this definition created
great deal amusement, and Mr. Bartlett remarked
that it appeared to be rather derived from hui
man experience than deduction from the principles OF
law.
Alter Mr.. Wells had presented his views with great
clearness and learning, Mr.. Choae to make the
closing argument Tor Browne.
AS the $4,000 lost by Browne, he held the govern
men to the rule, that they bound by the natural
explanation which both Wyman and Browne had given
to It. But by whatever means the money had been lost
to the bank there was not word Of proof that lost
between April and October ls4a therefore,
had been embezzed he could not be touched under the
indictment, which charges the offence to have been
mted during the period embraced thin
This indispuabe law, but Browne not driven
evidence furnished by the government that the had
always been known to Mis- superior officer, who
treated the matter OF the ordinary accidents
which teller OF bank must necessarily be exposed in
the discharge OF his duty.
This the proof. And the government could net be
allowed 60 behind it, and ask the jury vague,
loose, imaginary differences, without the pretence that
there scrap oil testimony authorizing shadow Of
suspicion that there had been any OF action
tween Browne aud Wyman in reference the s., 200
Had Browne medated wrong in the matter he had only
ng sumwouid no more nave been missed than single
Leaf in forest OF ten thousand trees upro0ted rress
TIME tornado Asto the priyty of Browne in the matter
OF loans Mr. Choate put in annniiaors He ask
any blame had ever been attached to Browne in rec
renee to certain kind and liberal accommodations ex.
tended the drectos For instance had the directors
while he in the bank, thought to call him to &C
count when MIR. Hunnewen went TO his drawer, and
with his lawful and authorised hand took $4,000
and lett in its place his demand motel Was Browne re-
garied participating in an act OF embezzlemsnt when
there WAS no b.zlIsmen; in that And Whv RecaU,.
the directors considered that Browne had any
right to concern himself about the loans made-t
none OF his business His business to pay out the
money on the loans granted by his supeors This
the end of his duty would lac have incur
red he had ested doubt OF the regularity of the
proceeding wheh Mr. Hunnewel any other director,
came to his counter with demand note to be cashed 2
How promptly would he have been told to mind his
business and not NEEDLE with matters entrust ed TO
his Thus he Stood upon this Of the But
there was another-had any proof been produced that
Browne had ever received any limitations by which he
to regulate his practice in respect loans Had he
been told that ne might pay out the money
class and withhold on others that when director came
TO his desk with piece of demand paper he open
his drawer and count out the moneys but when body
else came he refuse to hand the money! No
The government have therefore proved all that
cessary for the defence Of Browne In conclusion and
way Of recspulaon Mr. Choats put 1t to the jury that
act Of Brownies had been proved in relation to cash
ing demand paper which had not received the sanction
director and Tor the best Of all because such
had been except such US had been made
| to directors.
| Mr.wEpsrEnfolIow wed in behsfof Wyman and began by
rebukng the auson the character Of the Counsel for
pleasantly remarked that he nothing peculiar in the
that lawyer shonld engage the duties
TO do MIR. Webster then proceeded to the case by re
minding the jury that Mr. Wyman was on trial according
the crime Of embezziement. On that specIsc Charge
his client forward to be tried under the law of
ne haa ne SsV 90
charge and the proof and apply the poofo the charges
and the proof did not meet the 81, charge they would
connection with the bank which proved that he had al
unlimited authority to act according to his dscre
ton in dscountDg paper without the authority OF the
directors when the capital was increased, the bank
started by the of oaning the demand paper Of
the directors And this paper expected to be passed.
and was passed by wyman and cashed II it embez
Element in g. R. 4 Co. TO borrow and fall what thu
loan to Hunnewe-what was his operation? He issued
at once his demand and command the cashier and be
sbey and HuHneweli took $1,000 If he had failed i'm
mediatey after, would he not, the government ar,
right have been guilty Of embezzlemel That is the
law they contend Tor and. under it, Hunnewel ktood be-
fore the jury the most distinguished embezzler Of the lot
one who used the influence Of his official relation
the bank compel the officer Of the bank to give hin
the money he needed The fact that Hunnewe did not
fail after procuring the money did not change the char
Of the original transaction Nor could the failure
Of r. CO. change the character Of their original ope
raons. Ii there fraud, intentional fraud in the
loans the failure could not make them fraudulent
The law admitted OF no such retro action The law
| required fraud in the incepton-an intention TO de
fraud the bank-and also, that the existence o.
this guilty intention should be proved by the circum
stances Of the transaction by the terms OF the looms;
the purposes OF the psres expressed at the me by the
appropriation in pursuance OF such declared purposes
Ali his must be proved by evidence entitled TO credit
The jury not 10 infer il merely from the simple fail
ure OF Stanley, Reed Co. He demonstrated that not
whsanding the original bylaws Of the bank had been
put into the there had been regulation produced
iorbiddng loans demand paper On this material point
the evidence totally silent There such re
sction in existence but IL there had been had been
practically revoked by the very directors
It. He next proceededto define entertainment secret
crime usually effected by false entries by forgery by
wrong figures, by which supervisors cannot de
the time OF their account Of their
secresy. This WIS the nature OF embezzcmsnt II was
rarely perhaps never discovered until the embs zzer