The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-11-22
NEW RoCnELLFs SECRETARY
Charges OF both Grand Larceny and EmbeE-
sleReut-HIs Bank Accounts.

Tho trial OF VIM. II. Humphreys, the de-
fauItlng Secretary OF tho New Rochelle Savings
Bank. was begun in the Sessions at White
Plains on Wednesday. Tho Indictment under
which he Is placed on trial contains two counts.
the first one charging him with grand larceny.
and tho second with the embezzlement OF
10000. His lawyers requested that the Dis
trct Attorney be instructed to elect under which
count he proposed to prosecute. Tho Court re-
fused to do so. and the trial was proceeded with
on both counts but as both counts Of tho In
indictment set forth that the offence was COM
mittod In January. 1874 tho defence called tho
attention Of the Court to that fact. and asked the
Court to rulo that it rcstrct tho prosecution
to proof OF a single act OF tmbezZlement;. Tho
Court. however, refused so to rule. and II WIS
then asked by tho defence 10 restrict tho proof
TO acts committed within q reasonable limo be-
liked upon one year prior TO and ono year sub
sequent to Jan. 1874 us tho limit OF period;
nets OF fraud and elnhezzlement committed Gs
lato as September, 1877, being brief period be-
fore the closing Of the savings bank.
We're denositors, and T.. NJ. Tompklns. the re-
coiyer. They testified that Humphreys cred
tied the depositors with tho amounts they paid
correctly In their respective pass books. but
tho bank, and that In order to prevent detection
he computed and paid interest on tho sums Ac-
tually deposited in the bank. while for the in
spection Of the bank trustees he computed and
entered on tho bank ledger. The dclcit Of the
bank If set down at sl3.7l0.92.
=. Charles H. Roosevelt. LAWYER Of Now
Rochelle, testified Yesterday that he was one Of
the trustees Of the bank at the time that Hum
phrey was appointed Secretary. Although no
special order was made, 1t was well understood
that Humphreys should receive and pay out
money. for the bank. In the cross-exami nation
the defence tried to prove by him that a de-
llciency existed in the assets of the bank at the
timc Of Ilumphreys's appointment. but tho
Court ruled out the question 10 was. however.
subsequently admitted in the cross-examina-
ton OF y. NJ: Tompkins' the receiver, the de-,
had not found that deficiency existed
II tho assets Of tho bank prior 70
claimed tho right to answer on that
point on tho ground that the alleged tHlse en-
tries made by Humphreys were admitted TO be
false; that that falsity was for the purpose OF
concealing previous deficit Of long standing;
that the bank officers advised and directed
Humphreys to take the cash balances Of the bank
homo with him rs matter Of safety, because
the banks safe WIS not safe place 10 keep IL
in. and that thus. while having the money Of
the bank in his keeping. q considerable part
was lost by n fire in his dwelling. In reply,
Mr.. Tompkins said that there had been de-
hc.iency. but that 1t hadbeen made up.
Mr.. Cochran propOunded n long question. ap-
parcntly designed 10 show that the receiver had
commenced u suit in the Supreme Court against
the officers OF the bank on the ground Of fraud
him short saying that that suit must be cx-
cluded In tho proceeding. and that Humph-
reyss innocence could not be established by
Mr.. Cochran asked the Sessions Justices to
sustain him, but Judge Ginori replied: When
they want TO sustain you, they will let you
know" Thercupon Mr. Cochran declined TO
further cross examine Mr. Tompkins;
Edward Lambden. a trustee OF the. bank. tcs-
titled that he received a letter from Humphreys
soon after tho latter ran away, I'm which the
writer said he first took money from the bank
whom his house In New Rochelle was burned
and that the President and Treasurer Of the
bank were as guilty as himself.