New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-07-27

courage IN defending Q case OF so much importance
TO all parties concerned. lie repadated tie charge Of
a1ity in the management Of The bank.
The Lord ChiefJastice, in summing up. said he
agreed with the learned counsel for the defendant ttct
the real issue was whether the defendant had stolen the
gold and the notes. IT, however. they came to that
conclus on although the defendant could no, be tiled
here for that oAcnse he was however ciyiy Vsponsl.
be FOX ihe amount deficient When the Last counting
took place, in 1862 every hing was correct bat after
the defendant left New York largo deficiency was
discovered both in the gold and currency notes. After
oil ldnc TO the Discrepancies in the evidence given by
tic defendant and that OF the witnesses taken III New
York, and referring 10 the defendants admission
of the discovery " the deficiency Of $4,000 currency
bis LOrdship said that the course man should
adopt who had made such a discovery. II he knew
he was honest aud was not influenced by appre
tensions such as honest seldom entertained, he
need hardly tell them His conrse sl0ud have been 10
have or once called the attention or the bank TO fact
Of such grave importance with reference not only to
the Interests OF the bank, bnt also 10 bis own personal
character and position. Instead of making c0muuDi'
CATION 70 the bank auth0Tles be entered tie amount
IN bis book daily as II TIC money q. srhmNy III the
bank After tLat he absconded lui before doing that
he made away with his proportg sn When ne was aQ-
pretended England he had ,hauged his personal ap
pe@ance. The whole proceeding was one OF tue grav,
os possible saspicioa. On the other hald, .ere was
nothing show tina, he bad acquired Dioperty ccexcn
siye with the money deficient, or that his mode OF
living had Increased Ioporiionetey or that he had en-
b
The july retired consider their verdict. and were
ahssn, about an hour Shortly before o'clock they
returned into court and the foreman read from paper
the following finding; I'VE think that the defendant
was responsible for the safe keeping OF the moneys left
in Lie charge. Beyond that We are not prepared to
fnd."
Tho Lord ChiefJus,ce-That is not sufficient; II IS
not determination Of the question submitted To YOU
and must request you to reconsider your verdict
One the jury said he feared they should not agrees
Il was n criminal charge if the question was whether
the defendant took the money and the evidence was
hardly suficien, upon such charge.
Inc Lord Chief Justice said the proceeding was
purely civil and he question was not merely whether
be was responsible of the safe keeping OF the money
but whether be was indebted for its receipt 10 his own
use which lie could not be- unless he party 9the
taking oft The jury therefore must reconsider then
verdict.
The Jury then again retired, and were absent nen rs
another hour. Upon their return into court. they
that they we're aged upon verdict Tor th
plaintiffs.
Tie counsel for the plaintiffs then stated 'aat as
was contended on the other do that the verdict shou
only be or the value Of the currency at the time wa
taken and the bank xious TO avoid the deiey
any further litigation, they would consent 20 taKe
,cii,t Ion An amount calculated at that yane Whlc
would be G2673 and for that sum accordingly me Yer
diet wa entered.