Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1875-09-15

ISAAC BRANDT, Deputy State Treas
urer under Major Rankin, indicted
for embczzlement in taking interest
on the State funds, and converting the
same to his own use, it will be recol-
lected was tried before the District
Court of Polk county, some months
ago, and convicted. An assignment
Of errors was. made by, defendants
attorneys, to the rulings of the courtg
below, and the case carried TO the SUI
preme Court. This court of last re-
sort, has passed upon the case, and de-
clare that the jury was illegally inn
pannelled in that the Deputy Sheriff,
instead of the Sheriff, took part in the
drawing of the grand jury, when the
statute requires, in so many words,
that the Sheriff shall perform this
duty. The opinion in full appears in
the State Register Of September Sth.
The court sustains the defense in 9TH
er errors assigned, also. Judge Beck
dissents from some Of the conclusions
of the majority of the Court, but
agrees i'm other points. His dissent
ing opinion is also given in full in
the Register.
The State Souynal gives the follow
ing synopsis of the decision, and the
opinions of the various judges:
l. That the failure of the judges of
election of Franklin township to Sc
lect and return the two grand jurors
allotted to that township, and the
subsequent supply of them by the
Board of Supervisors, did not affect
the validity Of the indictment.
2. That the court did not err in
holding that the foreman of the Grand
Jury could be selected from those
summoned as talesmen.
3. That since the statute made ii the
duty of the Sheriff in person to COM
pare the list of grand jurors made by
the Auditor, and had expressly en-
acted that duty could not be done by
the deputy--it was illegal for the
deputy to do that duty; such Illegal
ity vitiates the Indictment. This is
the precise point decided by us in
Dutell VS.. the State, A G. Green, l25,
and the district court therefore erred
in overruling the motion to set aside
the Indictment.
4. That the indictment does not
charge an offense under section 2243,
for that it does not charge that the
money loaned was unaccounted for.
The court holding that section 796 and
following, (Revision) prescribes the
penalty Of fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars for the offense Of
loaning the money, while section 4343
when properly construed, prescribes
the penalty Of imprisonment for loan
ing the money of the State, and failing
to account therefor. The indictment
in this case is under section 4343, and
does not charge that the defendant
failed to account for the money
loaned.
5. The indictment is insufficient in
that it fails to charge the offense with
sufficient particularity in this, to-wit !:
1t charges the defendant with loan
ing 100000 of the public money, but
does not charge to whom the money
was loaned. That the offense is com.
pleted by the loaning of any sum to
any person, and that the defendant is
entitled to be informed by the speci-
fications in the indictment to whom
the money was loaned, in order that
he may be prepared to defend HIM
self upon the charge made, and also
that he may be able to plead the ac-
quittal or conviction in bar of prose-
cutiOn.
8. That the indictment was also bad
as to the second count, because it
failed to specify how the defendant
converted the money Of the State to
his own use. 5s
All the judges concur in the first
two points.
Judges Cole and Day concur will,
the Chief Justice; also in the third
and fourth points of the opinion.
Judge Cole concurs in the fifth and
sixth points.
Judge Beck dissents to all bnt the
first two points.
Judge Day does not concur in the
last two. ;.
Tho elevators In the now Palace
-