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


morning DIR. Wright was recalled. Tes
titled that he was one of the committee
appointed in March, 1877, to make de
mand of defendant. Couldn't state dc
mand in words; substance wasa demand
by Crichton asking defendant for money
Witness and Crichton informed him
theyshad been appointed by. board 10
wait on him and find amount of land
sold and receive the money. Crichton
made the demand in witnesses presence
Cross examination-Did not state this
yesterday; don't know why; was asked
by counsel to state all that occurred
Crichton and Gillett spoke to me about
II. Witness repeated at request of coun
sci what occurred at the interview re
ferred to; couldn't give the demand in
words, but remembered the fact of the
demand
Redirect examination This state,
ment is true though not stated yesterday
Recollection as TO correspondence is that
it was not obtained at first interview
Saturday morning preceding, the Mer.
chants hotel meeting, another demand
was made
Cross examination The second de-
mand was after Crichton's return from
Salina. Bancroft had given witness a
report (under circumstances already
stated; promised TO place the report be-
fore the board; showed it to Crichton as
a member of the board Witness and
Crichton called on Bancroft on their
own motion; not officially exactly,
though land committee had not been for
mally discharged wanted TO get infor-
formation as to the true state of things.
Redirect Am secretary and treasur-
er of the board, and was then; if Ban
croft had paid money at that time would
have received it; receive all moneys
from the present agent,
Cross examination Went there on
our own motion to obtain information
for the benefit of the board, and on board
business.
In the course of this testimony Judge
Ruggles said, for the defense, that with
all due Difference to the court, they had
striven in vain for a clean cut ruling as
to what was admissible in testimony.
The court remarked, that with all due
Difference to the counsel, there had been
more frivolous objections raised in this
suit than in any that had ever been tried
before him.
j. II. Crichton was recalled and said ::
Made demand on Bancroft for mon
ey on or about April 18th, 1877; asked
for money received, and got all he said
he had; made demand also after return
from Salina; last time did not make a
demand in exact language, but in Ian
guage that would be demand in law,
On cross examination the witness re-
peated what occurred at these interviews
substantially as he had given it, after
which the prosecution rested and evil
dence for the defense began to be intro
duced.
BANCRoFT's TESTIMONY.
f. p. Bancroft sworn The plat re-
port was identified as collection of pa
pers made by him. Wrote also the pa
per attached Summary of his sales at
time of repOrt) Plats are correct re-
port with exception of clerical errors
ceived on them the amounts stated
therein, except slight deductions for eX
change; paid n portion of the money
TO DIR. Wright, member of the board
could not state the amount from memo
Dry; reference to memoranda showed
$4,4O9.94 principal, and $941 .02 interest
-total So, 350.96, Remembered interview
with Wright and Crichton April Is.
1877; there was not nearly as much
w ri ~ hn
ut the interview with Wright alone.
Wright and Crchton came to Office of
witness, said they had called for state
ment regarding Normal school lands,
before promised when before the board
of Regents; witness gave them a memo
randum of certain lands sold and the
amount of money received for them.
Crichton asked witness if he had books
and papers relating to Normal school
lands; said he had, and produced all he
had-a roll of plats pIlrporting to come
from the government and little memo
randum book; was not provided by
board with books; used ruled sheets of
paper. Wright said he was authorized
20 receive money arising from sale of
lands; witness said he was willing to
pay it, and did pay the amount stated in
the report given at that time; this was
practically all that took place nothing
agency or about parties paying interest
after that time to any other person.
Statement to Crichton and Wright at
that time did not embrace tracts as
shown by plat report; was unable then
to turn over all the money he had re-
ceived; made the memorandum correct
ly so far as particular pieces themselves
went, of as much as he could then ac-
count for.
Ouestior. What dae;0n ax-,,oota+;o,,
and intention had you then of replacing
the money on land sold and not stat
cd in memorandum Question object
cd TO as incompetent. Debate ensued.
Gillett:-This might be question for
the court in fixing the degree of crime,
but the question of intention to replace
money was not competent as evidence.
Ruggles The question was as to the
intent with which the action of taking
the money was done. If there was no
intention to commit crime, no crime
was committed. If Bancroft had used
every dollar and had replaced it in his
own money In a day or a week. he would
not be liable. If at that time or at any
other time, Bancroft had reasonable
ground for expecting the money replac-
ed, that fact should go to the jury, whose
province it was to determine whether
Bancroft's explanation was reasonable
or not.
Gillett:-The defendant couldn't now
go on and tell what he intended to do,
when at this time he has admitted max
Ing false statement. The gist of the
offense is in the refusal to pay over the
money. The offense was committed
when false statement was made, for Just
as much as he ought to have paid over
and did not. Had never heard of case
of embezzlement without intention to
replace. The intent to embeZzle had
been proven from the mouth of the wit.
ness, and he Is estopped In law from
making statement as 20 his intent to re.
place. That does not in the slightest
degree reduce the crime.
Lynn Prosecution has introduced
evidence to prove Bancroft's evil intent
if objection is sustained we are debarred
from showing that he had no criminal
intent.
Gillett cited authority Bishop 361-
361) to the effect that if servant keeps a
true account he cannot ordinarily be
convicted for embezZlement- 1t is es,
sential that there should be denial OF
having money, false entry or refusal to
pay. Offense is committed when false
entry is made. What was done could
not be undone by subsequent evidence
Lynn; The question of sufficiency OF