The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-04-20
TIE PALMER Case.
The Verdict Set Aside and the
Indictment Quashed.
The Supreme Court Decides Palmers
Conviction Illegal, but Orders
His Detention In Custody
for Further Prose-
cution.

opinion. read In the Supreme Court yesterday
by Justice Levy. we give II in full to the public
on account OF the general interest attached to
the points involved:
No. 5sss-state of Louisiana VS.. Edward
G.. Palmer, appellant.
The defendant. Edward O. Palmer. wns in
dtcfed tried convicted and sentenced to three
years i'm IMPRISONMENT at had labor on the
hsLse as sf1 ra 10TH ha beins The presden
n hank chartered by the State Of Louisiane. 10
wit: the Louisiana Savings Bank and Safe
iousiy. Knowingly and willfulIy did wrongiully
use dispose OF. conceal and otherwise en-
bezxle and convert to his own use certain
money. TO wit: the sum of SAT As7 "a belonging 10
The said Louisiana Savings Bank and Safe De-
pbsit Company" Second-That. being presi-
dent OF the eaid bank. etc. and acting az such,
he did ''feloniously, knowingly and willtully
wronefuly use. dispose of. conceal and other
wise embe szle and convert TO bic own use" the
aforesaid sum of money deposited m the SAID
Louisiana Savings Bank and Safe Deposit
Company"
A motion for new trial having been denied
and motion I'm arrest OF judgment overrulsd,
the accused was sentenced rs above stated. and
has appealed from the judgment and sentence
The defendant, during the progress of the
trial. filed Ave bills of exceptions TO- various
rulinRs OF the court, and made an assignment
OF errors and additional and supplemental as
The first bill OF exceptions is TO the. charge of
the court on the request Of the defendant to In
ssruot; That IL the jury find from the evidence
that the money from the Louisians SAVINGS I PC
longing TO the bank or composed Of the depos-
It's was. under the mode of doing business OBJ
served In said bank, Entrusted TO the cashier. or
teller, or come officer OF said bank other than
the president. and that. IN point of fact the de,
fendnnt never had control or possession of said
he cannot be e9nyced 81 OF b hay Wing
II being essential TO constitute said embeSzle-
ment or conversion that the money. the subject
custody, and intrueted to him as president and
so being In biz custody or possession as prest-
dent was embe z5led or converted by him"
that, in its opinion. the actual personal GUS
for The crime charged" On the request to In.
sumed to have the actual custody and posse,s-
sion OF the money. OF the bank. whether the
deposits. and The president is presumed not TO
have that possession and control. and the jury
must accept and net on t6at presumption un.
s e % es Goas no sSs
the court It is immats,rial whether
The possesaon Of the PRESIDENT or the sas
The. defendant requested the court to charge
further in his behalf, That 4 the jury finds
which the defendant Is charged with having
embezzled or converted TO his own use was OBJ
tanned By oyerdrafts on his check or the checks
Are Instructed to And that the obtaining Of
money by said oyerdraftJ was neither an en-
btEyement by defendant or q conversion to his
naf hs Of ds ae m9 n + or
refused to give such charge for the reason. the
question Of fact before the jury Is not merely
whether the accused obalned any money by
bezzled OF. converted to his own use any money
belonging TO the bank or deposited therein"
The court instructed, us Jury that II Mr.,
twenty eighth OF June. 1879. or any other day,
having to that account a proper credit u his
favor. and transferred the amount OF his check
transaction; provided that the bank lcas then IN |
regular course OF business
The second bill OF exceptions Is directed to
the ruling 81 the court rensng e. to the
the money In tho president, and entrusted to
him as president, was essential to constitute
NAT the cashier ia presumed to have the actual
custody and possession. and the president Is
not to have that possession and con- |
troll. and this presumption must be removed by
The third bill of exceptions is to the ruling of
the court on the request to charge the jury that
"the State having proved the charter of said |
bank under the laws Of this State; that on the
twenty. eighth OF June, 1879, and for years pre-,
the ~ sad 81 mas
BY. eighth OF June, 1879. the depostt account of
defendants commercial firm Of E. O. Palmer &
9Th SAID hank In to the
been. embezzled, In the indictment. said |
cyeFdraft on the check s X 9 81 said s, firm
s 81 sad i' sanf and that aSe de
fendant having proved that these overdrafts
had run through series OF years. and that the |
money he is charged to have embe Zzed and
to his own use was obtained by and
through the checks Of his said firm. and cred
tied to his said firm in their said account re-
account aad that interest was charged by said
bank In said account Of =. y. Palmer Co.,"
and that II the, jury finds from the testimony
,harged with having embezzled or converted to
his own use was obtained by overdrafts or his
sheck, or the checks OF his firm. the obtaining
by defendant. or a. conversion to
his own use Of the money belonging to or COM
posing the deposits Of said bank.
The fourth bill OF exceptions was taken to
he ruling of the court permitting the testi-
nony Of J. 8. Walton. the cashier Of the bank.
% be given. as to his ,twitnessl having, under
,ntries to profit and loss account on the books
4 the bank OF the following items: W. A. Van
note ee. Of r. g. Palmer
Norden's accommodation note of s752s so; and
hat said entries were false and Improperly
,eneft Of said obieations. and that Witness str e
when asked to make, said entries stated
Q Palmer they would not look we'll; but
lhb iuslSlcu UPON tu61F UblnR
made. and they were made on the
hirtieth Of June, 1879. but credited as Of the
wenty- eighth OF June. 1879, and that said bank
vas then In the hands OF liauldators. Defend
mt objected to the reception of this testimony
n the ground that the alleged false entries had
o connection with or relation to the offense
harRed. but this objection was overruled by
ne court. and the testimony admitted to show
he intent Of the accused with reference to the
ffense of embezzl, ment charged. and the State
rowing after wards that the account, of L. O.
'almer & Co. with the bank was overdrawn on
he twenty. eighth Of June. 1879. and that on
une so or July |. 1879. he drew his CHECK, for
he amount OF So 9Ss Is. an amount greater than
aid oyerdraft, said check being drawn upon
nd debited to account of E. U. Palmer In :,
tyidually. on which he had credit OF SIS, 900. !
ne amount OF said oyerdraft, being admitted, 5
nd the testimony tending to show intent.
The fifth bill OF exceptions was to the ruling !
I the court admitting the testimony of J. G.
sgan, by whom the State offered to prove that 4
he accused. L. O. Palmer. the president of the
ank. had stated to witness that the Louisiana Il
aylnRs Bank and Safe Deposit COMPANY was +
god and solvent; that there was no pos sibility
eneral. would give time a judgment of the Il
tate for taxes against the bank would c
,l.k Ia