Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-28
DINE SAVINGS Bank CASE.

One of the many indictments against 10.
Davis and Max. Marcuse. ia connection with
the old Dime Savings Bank failure, and
which have been so long dragging their slow
length along, was disposed of in the Superior
Court on Saturday. The case was one in
which the defendants were charged with
embezzling mining stock deposited with them
as collateral. Separate trials were granted
to defendants, and the case proceeded against
Max. MARQUES.
The evidence showed that Koleman bor-
rowed from the bank $50 10 October, 1877,
and deposited mining stock as security. He
paid the loan and interest the following Feb
ruary, and upon demanding his stock was
Informed that it was in o brokers hands in
San Francisco, but would be obtained and
returned to him. This was never done, how
ever, and upon this state of facts the indict-
ment was found.
At the conclusion of the evidence for the
prosecution motion for instructions OF the
Court directing a verdict of acauittal to be
rendered was argued and granted and in do
ing SO Judge Clark made the following re.
marks: The People having closed their testi.
moDy, the defendants counsel have made n
motion that is authorized by the statute, that
| instruct you to find verdict for the de-
PENDANT, for the reason that the prosecution
have failed to prove their case, as charged :;
and l feel constrained to give you that in
struction. The Indictment charges "that in
December, 1877, the defendant as the agent
and servant of Joseph Koleman. had in his
possession, by virtue of his employment as
such agent and servant, certain valuable per-
sonal property, to wit: One certificate Of
shares of stock, the same thea and there rep
roc rati fan sharac 0f fho ATavfoo,a C-1J
Silver Mining Company" and that SUISSE
quently he embezzled and converted it to his
own use. The only evidence in this case is
this: That on October 5, 1877, Koleman
pledged this stock TO Davis & Co. as security
for loan of $50; that Davis & Co. (Marcuse
being member of the firm) sent the stock
to their brokers at San Francisco, who placed
it to the credit of Davis & Co; that the San
Francisco brokers, who Were the agents of
Davis & Co, on DECEMBER 5, 1877, sur
rendered the certificate of the stock to the
Secretary of the mining company, and re-
ceived in lieu thereof another and different
certificate, in a different name end that on
February l, 1873, Koleman paid the debt
which was due from him to Davis and Mar
cuse, and was then of course entitled to the
return of the stock, or of similar number of
shares of the same kind of stock. Our laws
permit man who holds stock or ether per.
sonal property as security. or as pledge,
and upon which he has a lien, to pledge it
again to some one else to the extent of his
lien. II other words, to make an applica-
ton of the law to this case, Davis and Mar
cuse, having lien upon this stock to the ex-
tent of $50, with interest, had q right at any
time before the payment Of the debt by Kole
man to pledge it to their San Francisco
brokers for similar amount Having done
so before the pledge by Keleman was re-
deemed, and having done only what they had
right to 90, to wit, transfer it to the
brokers in San Francisco as pledge they can
not be charged with the embezzement of that
particular piece of stock. At the time the
stock was pledged by Davis & Co. to thu San
Francisco brokers they had right to make
the pledge to the value of $50, and having
done so they cannot be charged with embez-
Element, and as that is the only date ct which
they al charged with having embezz,ed it, and
the only time at which they could have done
it. then the People have failed to make out
case of embezzlement under this indictment.
because Davis and Marcuse at that time did
nothing more than they had right to do;
that is, to pledge the stock TO the San Fran
cisco brokers to the extent of their indebted
ness. If the then District Attorney had I'M
derstood the facts Of this case as they have
been developed on this trial, it is very likely
that an indictment could have been drawn
upon which charge of ENLIGHTENMENT could
be maintained. AS the indictment is drawn.
however, direct that you find verdict OF
not guilty.
The jury therefore rendered verdict of
not guilty without leaving the box. The
same against Davis was then dismissed,