The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-12-30

cu5ed bore TO halu brOtneEs aHu = -: Oon0o.A.'
we must examine the evidence before the court,
to find whether he was an accessory before or
after the fact, as charged in the atfidavlt. =,
To constitute person an accessory before the
fact, it must be shown by the State that the &C,
cused counseled, advised, persuaded or melted
the nrincipal. P. n Benachi, to commit the felony
charged; that it must also appear, and IS lndls-
pensably necessary to show that the accused was
absent at the time OF its commission.
1 find no evidence before the court to snow
that the accused had any knowledge Whatever Vi
the wrongful use OF the money by Benachl De-
fore or 81 the time that it was used. A memo
randum. with the initials G. l. G.. in the hand
writing of the accused, Is 10 evidence, when
memorandum shows a loss OF thousand ana
some odd dollars; and another memorahouIl,
on the same piece of paper, having the initials
of p. N. Benachi, which shows loss OF some
three Thousand and rome odd dollars, Is also IN
evidence. 1t also appears from those MEMO
randa that these losses occurred from transac-
tions with the firm OF Woodward otluman,
prior to the 18th day Of May, 1874
From thu statement of losses sent to Raln
Brothers, it appears that the first loss, through
Woodward l. Stillman by Benachl, occurred some
time IN September. 1874. Therefore, 1t Is clear
that the $4,000 and $1,000 shown by the memoran-
DUN to have been lost prior to the 18th OF May,
1874, was not and could not have been the money
Of Rail- Brothers. The memorandum, therefore,
can have no weight against the accused. II II
shows anything, IL shows that ne specuateo IN
futures with his own money.
LieSsfeldt states that he finds certain false en-
tries in the books, made In the handwriting OF
the accused, and points to one OF some six hum
bred and some odd dollars, which he says Is
false and fraudulent entry, made with view OF
deceiving Ralll Brothers. His only reason for
saying so is that he has been unable to lind
among the books, papers or caecks anything TO
show that such a transaction ever took place.
Had he been unable to tind record OF any other
transaction which appears to have been legitimate,
he would have had the same reason to say that IL
was false entry.
1t does not satisfactorily appear, however,
from that, or any other entry that he has pointed
out to the Court, that the firm of Ralli Brothers
or any one else was defrauded. | find no other
evidence in this case which shows, or tends to
show, that the accused had any knowledge OF
Benachi's transactions, other than as book
keeper. Therefore, the State has failed to show
that the accused either melted, counseled, ad-
yised, or in any way moved Benschi to speculate
i'll futures. Is is clear that the accused ID not
guilty 10 an accessory before tie fact.
Now we come to inquire whether he 10 guilty
az an accessory after the fact, as charged III the
ath iavlt. To make one accessory after the fact,
three things must clearly appear: l That the
felony be complete; 2. That the accused knew |
that the feon was guilty; 3. That he must have |
received, relieved or aided the principal. For |
instance, had he furnished him with horse to
escape, or opposed the officers of the law whilst |
10 his pursuit, or by bribing the jailor to allow |
10 escsne.
Is it not enough to make one an accessory after
The fact to know that felony had been com
nittsd, and failed to make il known or to allow a |
Lion IN sscane These THING. the iaw.writers
,ay are merely omissions. I'be evidence in this
,ase shows at most that the accnsed had know.
doc of the condition Of Reuscbis bnsinees ga
,ooi .kaener ror some months before This a1idavit
vas made He must have known that incorrect
4 stements had been made bv Renacbi tn the
Sey Yor. bnuea ~ Re- III Rros Int this ,ct doas
not constitnte him an accessory after the fact
The hooks ga knit Inv him a. snneaIs from the
,vidance ara sIhatartiaiIy, correct and show