The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-12-30
THE STATE vs.. C.. l.. GABICI.

The following ia an abstract of the a. gumen
of Mr.. r. N. Ogden in the case of the State VS.. G
L. Gabici, charged as accessory before and aftel
the fact to breach of trus. and embezzlement, by
Ralli Brothers, of New York tried before Judge
W. L. Evans, First District Municipal Court, De-
cember 20, 1875.
Mr.. David C. Labatt having addressed the
Court upon the various points of law bearing
upon this case, he was followed by Mr. Ogden in
the subjoined remarks
II your Honor please, it is questionable
if it would bs possible for any one
certainly not for myself-to add to the
strength and Completeness Of the argu
ment made by my distinguished associate.
should certainly make no such attempt We're it
not that, in community such as this, prone
to believe Islander, men may bo found, who, by
percritical, will say that IN permitting certain
technicalities to escape unannounced to your
Honor, the full force of my clients case was not
thoroughly elucidated. Had We not felt conf
dent of Mr.. Ga bcIs innocence We should have
objected to the ties imony as irregular from the
beginning, for, il there has been fraud, it GER
tainly does not lie at the door Of Mr.. Gabicl.
l believe, as truly as there is God IN Heaven,
that Rail- Brothers protited by the specuations
Of Mr.. Renachi, but were unwilling to bear the
losses. When the agent of Messrs. Rail-
Brothers arrived in this city, there was certainly
q compromise O1cr0u-lI uOI Ill WOfus, CtTtdlllN
in substance and finding that the money could
not be recovered by civil proceedings, he made
this affidavit, in this court, for the purpose of
damning the name and character of Messrs. Be-
nachi and Gabicl.
will now read the affidavit.
Reads tine affidavit.
You know. sir, as well as do, what is meant
by accessory before or after the fact. 1t is ne
cessary to prove three material makings-up :
First, the felony must be complete; in order to
make this complete the accused must receive, re-
ieve or assist the felOn the question then arises,
was the transaction complete? There has been
no evidence offered to show that Mr. Benachi
has yet been discharged from the employ of
Bali Brothers.
The second ingredient-did Mr.. Gabicl know
that the felOn was guilty?
You fad, from Mr.. Llessfeldts testimony that
Gabici went to New York and stated to Ralli
Bros. that Benachi had been unfortunate, not that
he had been guilty Of felony, and that as an act
I've, energetic business man. in his zeal to accom-
plsh his great ambition he had "oerleaped him.
SELF and fell upon the other SIDE" Mr. Gabici's
statement (Which was read by himself in this
COURT goes to show that he always looked upon
Ralli Brothers and Benachi In the light OF credl-
tor and debtor. | challenge the Attorney for the
prosecution, or Mr.. Lessfedt, who's memory in
this case surpasses even that of Henry Ward
Beecher, to show where any evidence has been
brought forward to prove that the accused has
been accessory to any felony
oHppOS6 tnab MT b6DdCul were guilty., WHICH
we do not admit, where do we find law which
makes Mr.. Gabici an accessory? Admit that
Ralli Brothers did entrust say $40 000 to Benachi
for specn lation in cotton, and that Benachl dii
appropriate the said money to his own use, the
law holds that this does not constitute an embeZ-
element. Then, sir, if Benachi is guilty of no
felony, Gabici is innocent OF any offense what
soever.
Third is, that he must relieve, comfort or as
sist. I will read my authority.
[Reads Archlbald's, I'd, Merely suffering the
principal to escape, etc
Now sir, the same is laid down in Blackstone.
Reads Blackstone.
Now with doctrine as strong as that which
lives in this State, as it did in the old English
Government, they have failed to establish the
fact that Gabici had any connection whatsoever
with Rail- Brothers. II money had been due
him for services rendered, he could not. in any
civil court of the country, have recovered one
cent from Ralli Brothers, as he was at the time
the employee of Benachi.
They have failed to show that he was aware OF
any felony being committed; they have failed to
show that he either received, relieved, aided or
abetted the felon. The first information that
Rall Brothers received of Mr.. Benachi's misfOr-
tunes was that which was given by Mr.. Gabici
himself. Your honor has the reputation OF this
young man in your hands-a reputation which
has been without blemish or stain; and IN this
l will use the very trite language of
" He who steals my purse steals trash;
lis something, nothing; and has been shaved
to thousands;
But he who ilches me Of my good name,
Robs me of that, which not enriches him,
But makes me poor indeed"
At the close OF Mr.. Ogden's address, Mr..
Grims, for the prosecution, addressed the court,
after which Jadge Evans delivered the following
decision:
BEFORE JUDGE W. L. EVANS.
State Us. c. L. Gdbici, charged nth being an
accessory before and after the fact TO breach of
rust and enbezzenenL-In order to determine
his criminal liability it is necessary to determine
what relation existed between the accused and
Ralh Brothers and Benachi, VINO is charged as
principal.
Ii is also necessary to consider whether the
State has made probable of breach OF
trust and embezzlement against Benachi Con-
sidering all the evidence before the Court, am
of the opinion that the State has made a proba-
Die case against Benachi, and am satisfied that
ne was clerk of Rali Bros. at the time he was
charged in the affidavit with having committed
preach OF trust and embezzlement, and that he
las wrongfnlly used the money intrusIed to him,
md that the wrongful use OF that money constl-
,utes an embezzement nnder our statutes.
l am equally we'll satisfied that the accused, G.
L. Gabici, was not a clerk of Ralli Bros, as
charged In the affidavit, but was the clerk and
of ?. N. Benachi | am drawn to
le was employed and paid by Benach The
evidence shows that Gabici is not known as clerk
Upon the books of accounts kept by Bali
Bros, in New York, does it satisfactorily ap
bear that the New York house ever treated him
,r looked upon him as their clerk; they have no
account whatever with him. The only evidence |
ending to show that he was their clerk, is the |
evidence of Lessfeldt and Mr.. N. NJ. Benachi.
From the testimony of Liessfeldt it appears
hat he concluded that Gabic was the clerk of
aalli Brothers, by the INSPECTION OF the cor
dependence of the New York house. Neither |
he accused nor the New York house ever gave |
lin any information upon the subject
N. NJ. Benachi arrives at the conclusion that the
Lccused was the clerk of Rail Brothers from the |
Inspection of some correspondence which he read |
everal years ago. The accused, although in |
laily communication with him for years past, |
lever gave him any snch information.
Neither the correspondence referred to by |
4iessfeldt nor the correspondence referred to by
\. M. Benachi is before the Court. The CORES
,ondence referred to is not pretended to have
,een that of the accused. That correspondence,
[ read by any other person. might have led him |
o an entirely different conclusion; therefore l |
an attach no weight to that portion Of LESS |
edits or Benachi's testimony. We're Gabici to |
ne Rali Brothers for his salary, if any We're DUE |
he testimony before the Court would not justify |