The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-09-20


after deducting his legal charges or COM
missions for his services as such agent,
the defendent viii be guilty of embezzle-
ment under the first count in said inform
alton, and you will so find. Or if the
Jury are satisfied from the evidence that
the defendant, as the agent of the state of
Kansas for the sale of said lands, had re-
ceived any money arising from the sale
of said lands prior to the commence
ment of this prosecution; that the board
of regents, by any of its members duly
authorized for that purpose, demanded
of the defendant any and all monies
heretofore received by him by virtue of
the sale of said lands which he had
not legally paid over or accounted for,
and that defendant refused or neglected
to deliver to said board of regents, or to
any of their members by said board
authorized to receive the same, any and
all money which he, as such agent, had
received and not heretofore legally paid
over, after deducting his commissions
for collecting the same, not to exceed
per cent, then, and in that event, the
defendant will be liable for all money
which he may have received as such
agent land not legally accounted for
within three years prior to the time of
the demand, under the Sd count in said
you further find that the defendant was
prevented from delivering the same by
means beyond his control before he had
opportunity to deliver the same, or
had been permitted to use the same by
the board of regents of said school. BY
"means beyond his control" is meant, that
said money was lost by some casualty
which the defendant could not prevent,
such as loss by fire, or robbery, or some
other casualty. A conversion of the mon
ey by the defendant can in no sense be
said to be loss by means beyond his
control. If the jury find the defendant
guilty as charged under the 1st or Sd
counts in the information, or both,
you will also find the amount embezzel-
ed and state it in your verdict
18th. There is evidence tending to
show that the authority of the defendant
to make sale of said lands was revoked
by the board of regents on the 9th day
of June, 1877, and that he was notified
thereof within ten days thereafter There
is also evidence before you tending to
show that the defendant received some
money within three or four DAYS after
the 9th day of June, 1877 Now, if the
jury believe, from the evidence, that the
defendant received any of said money
before he had notice of his authority be-
ing revoked he would be liable for the
embeZZlement thereof. But if received
after he had such notice he would not be
liable therefor.
18th. Gentlemen of the jury: After
hearing the arguments of counsel, you
will assume the responsibilities of this
case, and trust and believe that it will
receive your careful and candid consid-
Grafton. Weigh well and carefully all
the evidence, and apply it to the law as
have stated it, and return into the court
such verdict as the evidence and the law
require, and you will have discharged
your whole duty. E. B. PEYToN,
Judge.
We shall attempt no report of the ar
guments of counsel, which occupied the
latter part of Friday afternoon and Sat
urday morning. 1t is sufficient to say
that the prosecuting counsel spared no
pains to secure the enforcement of the
law, while great legal skill was shown
in the conduct of the defense. The case
was opened by Mr.. Gillett, followed by
Lynn for defense, Crichton for State,
Scott and Ruggles for defendant, and
AttOrney-General Davis, who summed
up the case for the State
The case went TO the jury at p. m,
Saturday, and they, after being out about
four hours returned the following verdict
VERDICT.
STATE OF KANSAS VS.. E. P. BAN.
CROFT: We, the jury in the above en-
titled cause, do find the defendant guilty
of embezzlement, as charged in the in.
formation under the first count, and we
do find the amount of money embezzled
under the first count of the information
is $3,436.1S, and we, the jury in the
above entitled cause do find the defend
ant guilty of embezzlement as charged
in the information under the the third
count, and we do find the amount OF
money embeZZled under the third count
is 81 ,087.24. IT. GALBRETH,
Foreman.
Mr.. Bancroft was Immediately taken
into custody, and defendants counsel
gave notice of motion for new trial