New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-07-10

five had regular duties there; all tno cefh mb"' h'
turns at the cash ticker; it was common thing Tor
clerks 70 relieve each other when more desired 10
be absent.
J,hn T. Keenen a clerk In the bill department, was
next called and Identified his enteries in both the TICK
Ter and cash book From the books IL appeareu
that the witness made enteries at different theS on
Sept 49, 1874 the last two eneries IN tho cash arrears
books on that day being in his handwriting lo hau ho
remembrance what clerks or persons were present !"
the office when Il was closed on Sept 49, 1871 "'cSS
took no money from the TIL or drawers on that day hOr
had he any recollection Of the Bachia bill
To Cen Tracy-Would have no particular recollection
NJ, onv one ont OF thousand bills which might ths Dc
presented for Identification. witness was not pernh
nently employed in the cash,rOom. ana only khe" VI
being so engaged that day by the entries III III"
hooks fIe might engaged twice or three times
week. and then not again for months. Other ciorhS
from the bill department would DO called In tho same
way TO assist especially when some OF the cash room
clerks were on n vacation The books only prove WHO
made the entries and present 10 evidence as 10 10 'o
number OF clerks who might have been In the room u
inc the day All the clerks would at times pass through
the cashtroom on business and 1t was customary TO can
on any OF them TO assist and do service when needed
Both sides having here rested the case Gen. tracy
renewed his motion for acqutta on the grounds before
presented and also on this additional ground thatthe
prosecution had shown by evidence that some one OF
several persons had embezzed the money but hau pre-
sented no proof which one had so embezzed H. ana
therefore there could DO no conviction lie then al
dressed the Jury in behalf OF his client calling atteh
ton to the absence Of proof that the money was
ever received by Capt. Gill, and then reierreu
to his clients modest style Of living ana his
previously uublemished reputation when eVF
dence he thought should have great weight "hoh
the testimony OF the prosecution was so weak OF proo
The counsel claimed that the total amount OF the een
alleged charges was s1,4 taken or lost dIring we
and half AT
which period sjOOOO,OOO had passed through Ils
hands The small total Of all the charges that coI n ~
found being less than S. in s10O0G was PROOF thhs
Capt Gill not engaged in any systematiG phn VI
stealing for. knowing the means oy WHEN NV an
expert no would not be content with such pal'y ao
srdctiOns. -. 81, Tho
prosecution, and said that 1t had been proved Una" on
Sept 10, 1872 crime had been committed nasmeeh as
ths sum of Slg2 paid the Olfce on that uay
and entry OF ITS receipt appears ON any OF tne Dooh9
of the One" W 10 stolo ne m ter me @yart amount
and only some official In the department Noulu nave
fit enonrh interest in the matter stamp of the ac
count OF Mrs Bacia paid and that Tor the PURPOSE
of preventing detection. Assistant Collector Glll was
virtually tho Collector and it was his duty TO
see that .every sum OF money received was properly
entered in the books, as well as to take.charRe Oh W.
MONEY itself In falling to 40 th5 ne was FRI , ny
rail detect such omissions. In TINS case tue money
paid after the office had been closed between an
3 o'eloc in the afternoon. when MIS- Bachla tcsllueu
and described the person who received tne money 40
being short man, although Capt Gli was pIfsenta ~
the Court room, he arose 10 meet htf urnhCd-
ton but rather attempted 10 AVOID such
Thi, short man took the money ahd 9li anu Lc' t ~
one or two minutes the bill receIpted with the name Oh
"a W H. GIL" and stained. The signature 10 the receipt
bas heen admitted and consequently Gill must nave
bJen present when the money was PAID. Inc theOty
that clerk might take the money atcr taihs To iaho
an entry was overthrOwn by the facts themselves
such thing might be done at early hour or the Day
the clcrklakug the chance OF Capt en- leaving the ush
between A. m and D. m, but the evidence Is NAT the
money was paid after p. NJ when the office was closed
the books made up, and the rush OF business,
IL my 1rSt.d '"' 70 the hands OF capt. Gill
and to Lis hands only. To support the inleenee tnat
one OF the clerks stole the money. would have been
the duty defendants counsel in justice 10 MS
client to impugn the character OF the clerks VINO ap
peared as witnesses. This was not done Tue lmposs,
bity OF "A clerk taking this money between the mo Oh
It's reception and the hour OF sending the money 20 te
bank apparent, The DEFENDANT Dclhg present az o
time for having signed the receipt - PROOF ol us
presence and the testimony shows thar the money was
up at the close OF the day ana then SUM " 'no
bank at the earliest possible moment ,,, 80.
Judge Daniels then charged the jury ana pointed 9ut
that 1t rot denied that the speceu non9S Pau ~
on Sept 49, 1872 had been msaDpropra;cd II the eN!
dencc sustained the indictment that Capt uiu hau,
should verdict OF guilty put II those acts
were not made satisfactorily, although the Jury might
not feel satisfied That tue defendant m nds NJ
innocent 1t their duty 10 acqut The judge then
of De expert and Mrs B1cha and the plea OF the de-
fense that others might have taken the money whch
vas the xact sum paid by Mrs Blchia aud omitted -
be- entered on the bookss He showed the improoabilty
OF stranger taking such an exact amount ana II not
taken by stranger 1t rested between the defendant
and the clerks IL was not cOntrOlerted thAt tc money
was paid IN ana naq neen % a t6e money
| TO-, except that he was a short man Dus the
bill was signed By GIL, and tho receipt
was cogent evidence that he was present. The money
is not shown have gone into the hands OF any Otner
person and defendant did not deny receiving It
but that he had not taken or Incorporated
H. He then called attention to the hour OF pay Inent
and the denial the clerks who had appeared as wit
ness that they had taken the money He told the jury
that they should not acqut from mere sympathy WIN
the defendant his family nor on account or mere pre-
yious good character IL was evident that the money
had appropriated BY some person, ana III III cOulu
not have taken by Gill without attracting the at
tention OF the clerks, aud reasonable presumption
arose in minds the jury that these clerks had par
tcipated the incorporation they should not eA-
onerate Gill account, but bring nun IN Sullty
IT. however reasonable doubt exists as 10 his parcl-
patton either alone in company III this mlsapprOprla
ton they should give the prisoner the Denent OF the
doubt taking into consideration Ills previous goOu cnar
| acter.
nOns of law as intended to close the Court for the
night one Juror asked guilt could be proven without
actual evidence OF the guilt being shown, and
was answered in the affirmative providing
there were circumstances enough satisfactorily
10 show the guilt. 10 the inquiry whether or
not the signature Of A. W. H. Gill 10 the recepted
b was evidence OF his having received the money the
Judge answered that In part 1t would be- and would
have TO taken in connection with the other iacs or
the case The recepted bill handed 10 the jury for
their examination, and taken by them to their rOom
where they locked for the night and the Court
WAS adjourned until this morning.