New-York tribune., 1874-05-07
TWO SIDES OF THE sPRAGUE CASE.
ARGUMENTS OF THE HON. FRANCIS HERMAN AND EX
JUDGE VAN CoTr.

ARGUMENTS OF THE HON. FRANCIS HERMAN AND EX
JUDGE VAN CoTr.
The Sprague trial draws to close. The
Hon. Francis Herman made elaborate speech for the
Defense yesterday in which he referred to all the prin
cpal points Of the evidence He claimed that Sprague
never Intentionally used dollar OF the citys money
and that even the checks in evidence paid the
banks on which they were drawn responsible for
the amounts. Ex-Judae Van Cott spoke for a hours
during which ho contended that Sprague had shame
fully neglected his duties City Treasurer and should
DO punished. The Judges charge will be given this
morning.
Upon the opening OF the Court Mr. Van Cott stated
that he press for conviction is counts OF the
Indictment which those referring to the transaction
in Jefferson car stock, Fulton Bank stock, tho Long
Island Club oan the Wlow-st property, and the thea
ter property The Hon. Francis Herman then began to
sum up.
ABSTRACT OF Mr.. KERNAN's ADDRESS.
The question: said he is Just this Is this thief
by intenton-sh he feoni Mr.. sprague never dreamed
OF cheating the city. The indictment was originally
for stealing the ctys moneys; II Is reduced to
bezzement But did he embezzle the money! To embez
ze VIC must have elOnious sntent-crimnalntent to rob.
The question is, Did he have the intent when he took
it to keep It, or did he take it with feonous intent
You must be satisfied that he took money belonging to
the city and then that he took it with felonous intent
Did he convert money to his own possession He
thought he borrowing money from the Trust Com
pany, and he never Intentionally used dollar OF the
ciys funds lie Is directed by the charter to receive
all the citys money, and deposit the same In such de-
postores as should be designated by the Common
Council. Those banks hold the money, and only repay
it on the warrant Of the Mayor. When the money Is
handed over to bank 1t to belong the city,
and II that money stolen the city cannot loose It, DR.
sprague, man of property having large amount Of
colaterals hand which he eopded TO Rodmans care,
wanted 1905. He went to his bank and obtained O
check from tho Trust Company the Nassau Bank Now,
whose money was thati Was it not the money OF
the Trust Company He borrowed from ,v,3s t9s
interest and he is charged with embezzlng this
Treasurers office couple OF city drafts; he ndorses
them. Does he embezzle the checksi No; they pass
the drafts and stamp them For deposit to the credit
Of the Brooklyn Trust Company IN the Nassau Bank"
every dollar received that day How could he steal
them on Oct. TO- A.995i Then Rodman makes ticket,
having got all the money places the ia r., receipts
WHO did thlti Where is tho wrong against the prs
oueri The next charge .aetment Is the transac.
ton of Oct 10 and 49, 1870 where the charged
with embezzlng G,5OO Ths was all paid 10 the Trust
Company, and deposited, short by them, in the bank,
order OF sprague for $500 and 1t is ndorsed by him and
Judge McGae ca RGda1 sy ssys as sEnVeTsat9n % took
steal that money! Rodman is an ernbezzler OF his own
funds, by his own testimony In four years he has
private account Of over 100000, and In balancing his
accounts he Is $4,000 overdrawu-a defaulter Sprague
borrowed money the 6th and paid interest from that
day. The next transaction Is on Jan. 49, 1871 In which
he charged with enbezzling $4,000. On that day
there in receipts S0SCO and this deposited by
the Trust Company In the Nassau Bank and the Trust
Company that day loaned $4,000 TO tho Long Island
Club The President OF that CLUB as4ed Rodman for tho
loan and then went around and had the note ndorsed
How has Mr.. Sprague stolen this money! IL 10 not In
evidence that RDdman paid the interest on that note
amounting to $780, 10 the Trust Company
After dsposing of the remaining counts In the same
manner, the counsel said: Rodman. in his testimony
never said that he told Sprague that the money
came from the city. Rodman doing this work alone
and had probably used other money to make up that
$4,000 which probably speculated aud lost, he
cannot tell how his private account Is large Rod
himself from State Prison. tells the former
Attorney that Sprague stole IL, while the test
mOny shows that Sprague knew nothing at all about it,
Who is RJdmani Is he not u selfoonfcssed embezzer
OF $4,000 from the Trust Company He lay In Jail and
no man had confidence enough IN him 10 become his
bOnisman Then he IL lot out promising 60 before
Grand Jury and evidence Sprague, and
thus he will 10 free. There Is manhood left IN
criminal but there Is none In an infOrmer; ho Is
despIsed aud deosted by every one; he consents TO
shield himself by turning upon another. not for the
states good, but 10 save himself RDdnan testihes that
the 1920 matter WAS transacted In Judge MCCues pres
ence; did such cOnyersatOn about robbng the city OF
its money take place before Jadge McCue Do you
think sprague would speak 10 RDdman In suoh manner
In Judge McCue's presenoot No; and his
examination he is not sure that sprague said Thing
about " fixing It,"
ABSTRACT OF EX-JUDGE VAN CoTTs ADDRESS.
During the closing remarks OF Mr.. Herman some ap-
pauso manifested by the spectators but II was i'm
medatey suppressed BY the Court aud at he oud tho