The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-14
TEE PALMER TRIAL.
The Closing Of the Case and the
Charge Of Judge Whitaker
to the Jury.
The Jury Return into Court with an
Unqualified Verdict Of Guilty.

Superior Criminal Court since Wednesday. was
resumed yesterday. At 10 o'clock Mr.. II. O
Miller. one OF the attorneys for the defense
concluded his argument. and was followed by
Messrs, Singleton aud Brown. District Attor.
nsy Finney closed the case with n lost power.
ful argument The court than took a recess
and at Q o'clock last night Judge Whitaker do.
llvered the following charge to the Jury:
Accused II charged with having, on June IN
chartered bank, felontously. Knowingly. vii.
fully and wrongfnlly used. disposed Of. con.
cealsd and otherwise embaFsled aud converted
to his own use certain money belonging 90 the
bank OF which he was then president. and with
having embeszled the same money deposited In
The Indictment Is framed under section so7 Of
the Revised Statutes Of the. State, which
provides that any, president, cashier
sser or n or The aerve eser aor az
chartered by this State. Or which may
be hereafter chartered by thia State. who
vert to his own use or shall knowingly
ND and abet any person In emb AEsling, or con
yertiag 70 hs own use any money! beSSnE'ng
conviction, be Imprisoned at hard labor not
more than seven. nor less than one year."
The offense denounced by section 9o7 OF the
Revised Statutes is not the common law offense
OF embeEzlement, but provides u penalty for the
wrongful conversion to hts own uHe. by any
81 this State of any money belonging to such
bank. or deposited In such bank.
It is not the common law otfense known as en-
bezElement, inHsmuch No 1t Ia not necessary
that the money alleged to have been embezzled
should have been IN the actual custody Of
~ person a charged With the ofrense denounced
The JURY are Judges q the law and the facts
n TO this chargs. They are bound TO consider
ns Ssp :" tae law Is e
but the court has not the power to control the
substance of their verdict, As to the form
% s1s yeS If The Ty VIII Thew aon
are TO decide upon the weight. bearing and
credibility Of the Testimony. The court cannot
dsrexsrd ali 81 e The q testmony d eaeS Gu W.T.
ness that In reason aud good conscience
you believe to be untrue, and vii take into
consideration in making M your verdict only
ench parts of the testimony as YOU are reason
Ably satisfied are the truth.
You must give the. accused the benefit OF
Irresponsible doubt" is the solid. substantial.
conscientious doubt of II reasonable and rea-
coming mind az 70 the guilt of the accused. un-
der the creditable testimony produced upon
the t5ia, a. and In the Light ct the aw a. ex
mere Sst doas NJ to h g. quit "u not esuing
pr disposition In his favo-: not i eYmpathy III
his behalf. but the. substantial and .conscien-
doubt 10 TO the guilt OF the accused.
you must. acauit him, Entertaining. only thu
ASNEUA uVuut vi CT ORutAt ACAGllcu w, IL ls your
am requested to charge as follows:
:. That If the jury hndd from the evidence that
Bank and Safe Deposit Company. whether be.
longing to the, bank or composed Of its de.
poeits. was. under the mode of doing business
observed In said bank entrusted to the cash
Ter, Or teller. or some officer OF said bank other
Than ne president and that ~ point Of fact.
ne ds,endant never haa the custody Or nos
cf having embezzled OF converted satd money
to his own nse. y being essential to constitute
Se ssser q the NJ 1 M
ACTUAL possession or custody, aud entrusted to
him az president. and 50 being In his custody
q possession ,l az president, was embezzled or
The ruling Of the court on this question has
already been given. The request Of the de-.
fcndant must be refused. The actual personal
eeeential aH a basis for the crime charged.
Entertaining this view of tho law, the court
must refuse 10 instruct the Jury Ia accordance
charge a. fotiows; A
The cashier Of The bank y presumed to have
the actual custody and possession Of the money
OF the bank, whether the money belongs to the
9ank or represents its deposits. aud the presi-
dent is presumed not to have that possession
And control: and ne Jury must accent and &C.
The question Of actual custody does not seem
ft IL immater,al whether the funds of the bank
we're Ia the possession OF the president or the
The court IL further requested to charge the
Jury on behalf of the defendant: That II the
Jury finds FROM the testimony adduced that the
money, which the defendant ~ charged with
having emhezzed or converted to his own use.
was obtained BY overdrRfts on his check or the
checks Of his Arm, y. g Palmer 4 Co.. then the
ey an
besslement by defendant orr conversion to his
own use OF the money belonging to or COM
TheS court cannot 90 char The question of
fact before the Jury is not merely whether the
accused obtained any money By al overdraft.
yerted TO his own use any money belonging to
his bank, or deposited therein.
And this ruling applies to the fourth request
81 the defendant presented In the following
That II the jury shall Ind from the evidence
that there We're two ACCOUNTS on the books Of
the Louisiana Savings Bank and s fe Deposit
Company. one kept in the name of e @. Palmer
and one kept In the name Of =. G. Palmer h Co,
SanR Paef and ss
chat In eome instances in the course of the ac.
count the funds creaited to E U Palmer were
81 Palmer Co.. Or that IN some r sve eaaes
funds derived from h. @. Palmer were credited
70 y 2. Palmer ~: and that To the course ot
the accounts ~ forming but one account, with
the full assent of the bank: and II the
Jury shall further find that under the
same time an overdraft on the bank on the irm
account OF E O. Palmer i Go. and a credit tn u
greater amount to y. G. Palmer on his iudivi
Dual account. the jury are instructed that the
said firm and said Palmer had the right to tree'
the credit to Palmer individually as valid of.
get against the overdraft aud II they find that
In this state OF the accounts the defendant
drew his checs on his indisi iual account tor
the amount Of the ovardraft the jury are iu-
etructed that the check a cnmpiished no result
different from what tn law itself would have
and that the credtting OF the
check to the firm account compensated the
re Palmer and Palmer 4 Co. had separate ac.
counts with the bank. aud an understanding
With the bank thatas to drafts by Palmer or by
Palmer 4 Co., such accounts should be treated |
as essentially one account there can be no
doubt that an overdraft on one account might |
be Offset by the other. II Palmer's Individual
account was really In his fsvor. be had right
10 draw 10 the credit Of the flrm. The jury will
not understand the court to say that there were |
two such accounts. OF that there We're any |
oyerdrafts Time and surrounding ctrcum-
don referred to. II II had any existence was In |
accordance with usual business methn ds.
The court IL further asked to instruct the
hat Ry,l