The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-08
gain time 30 to do, he had carried along
the deficiency by false entries. This was
an error of judgment on his part.


DISTRICT ATTORNEYS REPLY.
The district attorney replied that the
statements made by the respondents coun-
sci were In the main correct. Still, the
main fact remained, that this defalcation
existed that the false entries had been
made that Mr.. Crane was in position to
know, and should have known all about
them and that he made no charge against
Mr.. Jewett until some time in 1873. which
was to him a very remarkable circum-
stance. He disclaimed that by entering
nolle pros he thereby admitted that Mr..
Crane did not take the Sl7,07689 He
did not feel at liberty to state who did take
that money.
Some question having arisen in relation
to what punishment the law required the
Judge to impose, the district attorney
asked the court to suspend sentence.
The court remarked that in this case he
desired to do exact justice that it was
very difficult to know what he ought to
do he was stranger in Vermont, and
knew nothing of Mr. Crane or his antece-
dents, but that the respondent would be
put in the hands Of the L. :. Marshal, the
bail discharged, and sentence suspended
| Tor the present.
CASE AGAINST EDWARD A. JEwEIT.
At the afternoon session of the court the
case of United States VS.. Edward A.
Jewett was taken up and heard on a gen.
eral demurrer to the indictment Hon.
Luclus Il. Chittenden of New York made a
lengthy argument for the respondent.
One point he made was that Mr.. Jcwett
was not an officer of the government
charged with the disbursement and safe
keeping of the public monies that deputy
collectors of internal reycnue were appoint
ed or discharged by the collector at his
pleasure that they were paid by the col
lector and were only responsible to him,
and that by law the collector is not only
responsible to the government, but to the
taxpayers for money that might go into
the hands of q deputy and be misappled
Mr.. Chittenden cited various authorities tc
sustain his positions and insisted that every
count in the indictment was defectiv,
either for the reasons above stated or OF
account of nformalities or omissions il
drawing them.
MR.. FIFIELD's REPLY.
Mr.. Fified, district attorney for TIN
government replied that deputy collector
of internal revenue were officers of the gov
! | cluiHSu', "ppoihtou w hulhOiitJ vi idN
, of Congress that certain duties were pre-
scliDed 10y law for them to perform, ainon
, which were to collect taxes, to make seiz
ures in certain cases, and that in case o
the death or disability of a collector tn
senior deputy was by law the acting col
lector, therefore he insisted that they wer
officers of the government, and inasmuc
as they were empowered TO collect taxes
they must be liable for the safe keeping q
, the money collected. Mr. Fifield state
, that the very questions submitted b
= Mr. Chittenden in his opening, la
Ill been raised in his mind whe
he drew the indictments that
had examined the authorities carefully an
s felt very sure that Mr.. Jewett was pre-
perly held as an officer of the Government
t But to make the matter certain he had pu
in different counts, under another statut,
4 which hold every officer, agent, clerk {
r person, who has the actual charge of pul
C lie monies, liable in case they are not pre-
b perly accounted for. Mr.. F.iield, in SUI
n port of his position cited various author
!, ties, and insisted to the court that the il
i formalites and omissions claimed by Il
respondents counsel did not exist.
AT the close of Mr.. Fifeld's remarks Il
t, court was adjourned until o'clock Satu
day morning, when Hon. John w. Stewa
: of Middlebury, continued the argumen
E. and Hon. Levi Underwood of Burlngto
> for Jewett.