The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-20
rms COUNTS.
seegnsl Recorders Court.
hfiiianhareaf. tndas,

Mlsnbsresr, Jadss.
STATE VI, d, HHArHs=sBRBAtH or fHHst AsD NM
Bfs8LRMsFI,
Decision rendered In the esss by The Hseofdsf
Of The sse1hd Recorders Court, on the seven
teenth oil October, 1871
Il. Uhafyst and 4, tjfiettens Tor prosecution.
A. 4 W, WORTHLESS and A. gsstlnsl for accused.
anes the sass WAS sabmitted have carefully
examined The bgeks 1T The prosecuting Witness
peujo sud fl ~ considered the evidence slisitea
III ths case,
isd the entries III his books perfectly rsenist
The correction III ths entry Id The cash book 81
blbtter IL IL no consequence, A. such corrections
are pf frequent eashtfhhse HI such books IN oil
kinds of BUSINESS. The j1hfpsl II The book tip9h
which We must rely, ana In this case The follow
lns sntfiss are properly snd regularly entered,
June 4. 1s74.-Under this date The sntyy shows
thst a cheek on the Peoples Dark wss given !.
ghspus sgainst The lsttsf's note for s7i3b, pays
June aI, 1874 Under This date the sptty shows
eheok Oh tbs Peoples bank, order u T. dhsptts,
against iattsts bess, psysble the twelfth ef July,
1874, for 1000.
two transactions between Pobiyl sud Uhspas took
|. That On Tile fourth Of jane, 1874, The latter
lUhapusl borrowed 5000 from PUpiyi, fot which
LOST be furnished his mite for t3t25, psyabls
sixty days after dste, VI The fats III ovet 87 per
cent interest per atinnni,
q. few weeks later ,UhapBs agsiB bprrows
sGtG ffotf, Pniel, TOT which loan the latter esfess
interest al the rate III per cent month, of GU
per cert per atiittttis
There ID no mention whatever made In The
bucks that Any collateral were given ~ secure the
payment u these Two isatis
Abe afidavit sworn 10 BY Poui6l states that
State warrant ~ $1,000 was furnished TO secure
The note Of sat25. but 40 description Of The war
rant IL given.
Witness p6ajol ststss Ia his testimony that said
State warrant I'll $1,000 aiid bthsf warrants known
NJ Pihekhey Smith warrants, were given by
Uhsptis ~ tbatstels 10 tsts NJ s2tg5 ~ the time
the transaction q said note took place, viz
fourth Of Juas, 1874,
The second witness, Dsllbotts, also tsstfiss
that The 1000 State wsftaht WAS given nj the
same time With the Fifekney Smiths warrants
W ssehfs the Bote of t3tg5. but said Witness de-
liyeted TO Pyuiol by Ubspus when the transaction
fJr The note VI $50, tooh place, viz twenty
seventh d June, 1874 which statement doss not
setss with Faaj6rs,
Both Of these Witnesses dsslafs thst no yseait,t
vas given Uhaths for his warrants III eollstsfsis.
but THE dsfeHse produces receipt III pehj1i, who
identifies hs signature 10 safs fUf iii Tbs ppska
nsy Smith waffsHts. each " which IL detailed.
SIN there y 30 mention made Of The $1,000 State
wafrabt Does mob the emission Ut any tnst,iiau
IN said tsesipt Of The most important spd vains4
Die ss8ntity justify The court III Surprising that
The said security 1.-THE State warrant Ut fi6fJDj,
upon wheb tie whole ease rests, Was the subiess
Ut smother hansa sti5h7
II IL seen by the shove thst The sssiitpypy III
the two witnesses for Tho pfosee ntiob, PsniJ aBd
Den6ts, is conflicting, and consequently Htasrs
tain. .Wltheub lmpagnibg IN the least The hon
esty Of thess Witnesses. wh6 are honorable and
teHpsctable msb, The court esnhot,. without ina
jnslies 10 the accused. accept such svidsHss,
which is Ientii ely Hhsustsiasd by shy written N
other evidence ~ conclusive, IT, ~ the asyt,t,ssl
Tor the prosecution, stated ~ the court ID the
course OF The examination, some agwsnes
should be- made for the defsstiye tne,arfiss III
The witnesses on seesnut Ut their advanced see,
should not the ooHrt, fJf the same tsasst In The
abssbee u al other evidence. givs the se0t,ssa
The benefit of the acknowledged anfsliabiiity 6f
said svideaes7
over TIRES years hsvs elapsed since st,osa
hahFssisBs took pses between rBigl ab5
ghsptis. no document whstsvsr. sfaspt the 70.
oeipt f1r The PinekBsv sn,tn warrants, IA pfodaesd
70 Explain those transactions, The entries In
Pdh1y.s books. ss already said, msrsy show thst
two leans we're made 10 Gbspt,s sBd nothing else,
The assussd is shown Ii, hays tsmsinsd In the
city long time sfef the mstpriky Of his notes h,
Ponjyl, and ~ have had other transactions viii,
The latter. who takes NO steps 10 collect the
notes. or 10 compel this accused b. aaaf,npt F6s tta
State warrant Of 1900. which he 10 charged with
having stthes led,
To STUN UP, the sass rests entirely upon The
unfsisbls Atld conflicting testimony Oh Two vii.
nsssss whose tnstnafy, by the acknowledgment
y ssv ssassss tW sHs pfVsesHsibH alIbsSH. s U.s.
feetive.
After matnrsly considering all the abgys facts
The court hiss e5ms 10 tbs conclusion that, svsf,
admitting that pujol did entfnst esrtain Etats
wsrraHt 10 Obapns, the nature Of the transaction
thereto IL TOO uncertain, from the The evidences
ELECTED, to justify the commitment of the accused
10 shs superior grimins Court OH sttst a ssyi6t,s
charge w that Of breach Of trust and smbezzlss
tnsnt.
Whatever may DO the opinion of tbs seurt ~
70 tbs merits 0f the case, The erims charged, ~
o. fined under the Law. hss not been proven,
The accused is therefore discharged,
Superior Criminal Court.
TRIALS,
Btabbipg with intent 10 murder=ssate w. AIsr.
andeT Harris. eolered, charged with stabbing
Maria drsH. go6rsd, on tbs 18th June. Verdict,
the court ON account Of his advanced ags sud
helpless children.
Hgbbsry-Btats W. VIM. Patterson, Dol. Carter
and Geo. Griffin. Tho two first wsre put on
trisl, Griffin having left for parts unknown. Not
guilty.
Murdsr--state VS.. Ernest pepps. Mistrial and
case refzed for Ath.
sobtB ttesEoyf.
Noiie pfoseaui WAS entered in tho following
eHses:
Shooting with intent to mnrdsr--Etats w.
Geo Tbsard and NafGisss Trsites.
Crime against hatnre--Btate w. Willis Peter
son.
FLEA 70 JURISDICTION.
Assault and battery--state Va. 3. Moran, O.
Psnnsl and ono Mich aefsop, etsrgsd With assault