The Placer herald., 1858-02-20
Trial Of Henry Bates.

The trial OF denry Dates, Ex-otate Treas
urss on an indictment for failing to pay
over the sum of $4,000 Of the State mon
.vs to bis successor in office, commenced
IN the Court Of Sessions on Thursday morn.
ipg. The counsel appearing in the case
we're, for the State, Attorney General viii.
lisms, and Frank Hereford, of Sacramento;
for the defence Col. Baker, of San Francisco
James H. Hardy, Of Sacramento, NJ. Z.
Mills, and Joseph A. Nunez, of Auburn.
The forenoon of the day was spent in
empanneliug jury, and the taking of the
evidence was concluded on Friday afternoon.
The case was opened on the part of the State
by Mr.. Hereford; lie was followed in the de.
fence by Col. Baker and Mr.. Hardy, and the
Attorney General closed for the prose.
cution. The arguments Of counsel were
closed on Friday night. On the assembling
Of the. Court this morning Judge Hale deliv.
cred the following charge to the jury:
CHARGE OF THE COURT TO THE JURY
Tho Defendant is charged in the indct.
ment of the crime of failing to pay over
moneys which he received as State Treasurer,
belonging to the State Of California. Here
the Judge read the indictment against Bates,
charging him with approprating the money
Of the State to his own use) Under this
indictment these questions are necessarily
presented for your consideration:
1st. Was the Defendant acting rs Treasu.
rer Of State duly qualified at and during the
period stated in the Indictment If you shall
b satisfied from the evidence that he was
then you will consider whether
I'd. At or about the time stated in the in.
dctment the defendent ceased to hold said
office and whether thereafter James L. Eng.
Iish succeeded him in his office and was duly
qualified as such officer
If you shall be satisfied from the evidence
that the foregoing propositions are true afir-
matively-then you will consider
Sd. Whether at or about the time stated
in the indictment MAY, l3 1857 Mr.. En-
glish as Treasurer of State and successor Of
deft. in said office Of State Treasurer deman.
ded of defendant that he pay to him English
the sum OF $47,94G,s7 or any other sum cx.
cseding the sum of 500 IS money in the
hands of defendant but belonging to the
State of Calfornia-which had been recev.
ed by deft. as State Treasurer, during his
continuance in that office. II from the evi
dence you shall likewise be satisfied of the
truth Of the last Affirmative proposition
then you will consider
4th whether the Defendant upon such de-
msnd failed or refused to pay over said sum
or any portion thereof eScee ling the sum Of
one hundred dollars TO said James /. En-.
glish. If you shall be satisfied from the
evidence that the de.endau, lid so fail to pay
over &c.,-then you will consider.
5th. Did the defendant during the period
that he held the office of State Treasure as
before stated, receive the sum Of si7.9i6,s7
or any portion OF that amount exceeding the
sum of 800, in money belonging TO the
State Of California, and Of which he was by
law made the custodian, and which As State
Treasurer he had not disbursed duriag said
period in manner prescribed by law-lf you
6nJ that he did then
9th. Was the refusal or failure Of the de
fendant topay over such sum of money TO
James l.. English. on the demand 10y said
English before named occasioned by una.
voidable accident or loss Happening to he
sustained by deft. II from the evidence you
are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Of
the truth of the last and all the foregoing
propositions, you will find the defend
ant guilty. But il you fail after fair con-
sideration Of the evidence TO find any one
or more Of these propositions true, or in res.
pect to them, upon like consideration Of
all the evidence, entertain reasonable doubts
then it is your duty to find the defendant
not guilty.
II the jury believe from the evidence that
the Clerks or any Of them in the office Of
defendant, by their peculations, larcenies or
other criminal acts, and without the knowl.
edge, connivance, or consent Of defendant,
while transactng or pretending to transact
his business as State Treasurer. or acting as
Clerk in his Office caused the failure iii any)
TO pay over and DC, as charged in the in
dictment, then the defendant is not criminal.
ly liable and he must be acquitted. But tie
burden Of proof of such crminality on the
part Of the Clerks rests upon the defendant
and by him must be established by prepon.
derance Of testimony.
1t was competent for the defendant, as
State Treasurer, to employ clerks and to au-
thorize them in his name to receive, and dis.
ourse moneys in the manner prescribed by
law. And it will be presumed that defend.
ants clerks acted in good faith and in 40.
cordance with the instructions Of defendant
until the contrary is proven.
In submitting this case 10 the Jury we
conclude by saying that, you are not here for
the purpose Of trying this case upon the
grounds of public sympathy or prejudice, un-
DER your oaths as jurors, you are not permit
TED to inquire or consider whether public
opinion is for or against this defendant per.
sonaly; nor are YOU permitted, even in the