The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-23
THE ATLANTIC BANK DEFALCA-
TON.

Motion to Quash the Indictment Against
acknowledgements OF Counsel-Deci-
sion Reserved. ttaUeO
Judge Benedict sat in the United States Circuit
Court yesterday, and proceeded with the disposal
OF the criminal business.
Mr.. John E. Burrill OF counsel for F. L. Taintor,
who has been indicted for embezzling $4,000 the
property Of the Atlantic National Bank, made o
motion to quash the indictment which has been
found against Taintor. Mr.. Burril contended, in
the course OF an able and heightened address, that
the Indictment was not specific enough, so as to
enable the defendant to know what he was to plead
to; that 1t did not charge when the embezzle-
ment took place, and that IT. merely de-
scribed the money stolen 'as divers mon
eys of the United States.n Further, there
was no allegation in the Indictment that the Attain
tic Bank ever carried ON the business OF q banking
association. The Indictment simply informed the
defendant that he was charged with embeZZling
100000 from the Atlantic National Bank. Counsel
held that the indictment was not specific, and that
in its present shape, the defendant ought not to
be called on to plead to ~. His Honor would not
find any difference in the rule OF pleading between
indictm ents for misdemeanor and indie fments for
felony. This charge amounted to serious offence,
though 1T might be called misdemeanor. BY call ;
ing 1t such the offence was not diminished In the
eyes OF the Court; and that the Legislature re-
garded 1t as a serious offence might be inferred
ten years. imprisonment-was greater than the
punishment attached to many offences which the
law described as felonies. SO that when q
serious punishment was attached, he was met
with the objection that II was no light matter, and
he had to encounter all the disadvantages OF o
man who was indicted for felony. Yet, was he to
be deprived OF these rights which the law would
give him II he was indicted for felony instead Of
able. He knew that the Court would do what 1t
could TO preserve the rights OF the defendant
without infringing the rights OF the prosecution.
to have specified, II this indictment was properly
framed. The exact nature OF the offence should be
plain terms, what II was the grand jury had found
against him.
Mr.. A. II. Purdy United States Assistant District
Attorney resisted the motion the part OF the gov
ernment He said II, as had been suggested by the
learned gentlemen on the other side, the jndict.
ment was detective not being specinc enough, that
could be cured by bill OF particulars. In England
II was the practice to give bill OF particulars He
knew Of no American case in which q demand for a
bill OF particulars had been complied with. He was
ready to give bill OF particulars, but he had
something TO say as to the frame OF the order for
such bill, and he would insist upon seeipg it set.
case In reference to granting bills Of particulars.
he would, II necessary, give bill oil particulars
made by the learned counsel on the other side
wa, that the indictments .ns did mot SET
would say that Il was the facts and not the charge
In the indictment, that placed the defendant IN
jeopardy. Counsel said that, with the exception
OF one count In the Indictment, there was no al
legation that the funds alleged to have been stolen
came into the possession OF the defendant as
said nothing about funds coming into his possession.
It might be- possible for the cashier to embezzle the
funds OF the association without their having come
into his possession as such cashier. They might
have been In the hands OF the teller he having the
kew OF the place in which they were deposited. A
diIectQr might ewbezzie tue FUNDS without tnelr