The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-04-20
THE NEW ORLEANS DEMOCRAT, TUESDAY. APRIL 90 $780,

regarding It as formal defect. considered that
should have prevailed. The decis! tons in An.
327 10 An 22e, 80 An 147. 4os, sustain this view;
ha 81 sd o wao1
Ing cashier OF the bank admitted TO prove That
he ma e certain entries to profit andloss acc unit
we're made under the direction of tho defend
ant, and that hey we're false and Improperly p
made and that Palmer G got bean
discounted for said Arm and the proceeds
passed to their credit Ia the 7ear 1874 the date
defendant when. asked TO make these, entries
they would not look we'll but defendant IN
sisted they shonld be made an1 h ,hey Wera
was then 10 the hands Of ilquidators.. Defend.
on the ground that the alleged false entrees e,l es
had no connection with or relation to the Of
fense charged. but the court ove rrueq me on
lection and permitted the testimony to be given
| to show the intent of the accused with refer
ence to he offense of embezz efaent charged Ia
the indictment under which ne was being tried.
the bill of exceptions to the admission by tho
court of the testimony of j, @ Agan. ESQ who
| the accused had stated to the Witness that the
bank of which he was president was
good and solvent that there was no b Possibility t
Ms Attorney General would give time - Judg-
ment of the State for taxes against the bank
would be paid: that these STATEN emit, were
| made to procure time for the bank, and that
abort time thereafter the bank failed this tes-
tins ny being offered TO show conceaitnent and
| intent ana for other purpose The defend
ant objected on the ground that the testimony
was wholly irrelevant to the charge on which
cite the prejudice of the jury against him and
to mislead and divert their attention from the
issue made by the indictment: the court tit
| n1ony to go to the Oury, We think the
objections q the defsndant to this testimony Of
b9 the nd haWe Tbe
| facts offered to be- proved by them, rePpec-
lively. as to the alleged false entries by Walton
| to the solvencv Of The bank ut the time the
compensation between them took place have no
such direct relation TO ne omePse charged e es
| part OF the res gestG rs render them admissible
| to prove the intent of tho accused. existing at
the time the otfense ia laid la the Indictment.
Being then irrelevant and wanting In such
direct connection they were calculated 10
operate 10 the prejudice Of the accused on the
M nds of the jury, and affect It's members In
iuriously towaI ds him by this Interpolation In
the Issue they were to decide
The other objectto ns are to the refusal Oh thG
court qua to charge as requested by the de-
PENDANT. and to the charge as given In regard 10
the law as applicable to the proof made by the
State and the defendant In relation to the OK
i4tence Of an oyerdraft by the firm of Il u
Palmer & Co.. OF which firm the defendant was
ber Of the sum OF st7 AZ q appearlng on
PENDANT of his check on his individual
fna said G"R to be s
to said firms account. which was done, thereby
balancing said firms account. and that when
tied to said firms account. said bank had re-
solved on liquidation and elected lduidators.
the bank having ceased 10 receive deposits on
the twenty eighth June. 1879. up to which time
it did business. and aaid check was dated on
the twenty. eighth Of June. 1879, though, drawn
said oyerdraft existed. and when the money
was obtained on the overdIaft. defendant had a
credit on his individual deposit account With
credit said cheek was drawn: and thai 1t was
debited 10 hts said individual account, that It
it should allow interest on The said credit at
per cent from July ], 1874. and that lib interest
had been charged on the overdrawn account OF
ment t. have been embezzled had been obtained
by and through said oyerdrafts. IN said deposit
account of said firm that they had run through
obtained by defendant on his said check. but
defendant directed 1T to be credited to the firms
account to balance the SAID oyerdratts etc, rs
a preceding portion of this opinion, The
jatEe q TIE II his Charge ruled that
er VIE Hbd p" bsnk a nd a' wss
derstood with the bank that as to drafts by
Palmer or by Palmer & %. said accounts should
might be offset by the other. II Palmer's in
dividual ACCOUNT was really In his favor he had
that III check was drawn by the accused upon
an account lawfully. to bis credit and was
placed to the credit of any other account ut his
discretion. there can be no doubt that there
could be no embezylement In such checking and
crediting. The position off the accounts and
they will consider the circumstances as disclosed
by the testimony In coming to conclusion as
to their verdict The court further Instructed
hat dot lnvt h la HIx,tI al
account on the twenty eighth Of June. 1879, or
any other day. having to that account proper
credit to his favor. and transferred the amount
of his check to the credit of bis firm. 1t was
legitimate transaction. provided that The bank
,cas then in the regular course OF business, and
unless there were some interpo,ing contract
with the bank. or regulation Of the bank equiv
alert TO contract. compensation or set off
would be legal under, such circumstances.
ton of the charge which contains the proviso
or qualification in italics:
We are Of the opinion that the court erred In
making this prOv1SO or qualification: that II
this right of compensation set off existed.
based upon the proof as rectted in the bill. 1t
was not affected by the provso or qualification
announced In tho charge, and If not thus af-
fected the charge rs given was calculated to
prejudice the defendant with the Jury and affect
provso Is moons istent Wi h the enunciation of
the law as made by the Judge quo in previous
portions of his charge. and was; In our opinion;
In itself improper. and. therefore. prejudicial
to the defendant.
We think 1t proper to model our decree here
In according to that rendered by our prede-
cessors in the case of the State vs. Curtis, 80
An. Sl4: also State Morrison. 80 An. SIT State
W.. Williams, 80 An. 1928
1t is therefore ordered. afjudRed and decreed
hat the verdict and sentence appealed from be
set aside. and the indictment auashed as not
good In law, and that the defendant remain In
custody. subject to the order of the Superior
Criminal Court for the parish OF Orleans. for
urther prosecution according to law.
THE LOCAL DEATH RATE.