Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-27

place and large crowd present. The pros
ecution created some stir by asking that Nj
Proudfit, the cashier, should be recalled. 7
this the defense objected, but Judge Horri
gan decided TO admit the additional testimony
NEW AND STARTLING.
Mr.. Proudfit testified that he had exam
ined the books kept by him from the Both O
January up to the 9th of February, an,
also the checks between that time, showing
goods that had been bought. Whenever
check was made out its items were trans
that his book called for, and there was NJ
check stating that two dozen buttons hat
been bought for one dollar. This is the tim
within which Mrs. Rogers says she purchaset
one dollars worth of buttons, but the witnes
found no record of it. The witness wa
examined at some length by Colonel Cant
as to where the checks were kept, and as I,
the possibility of one of them being lost
Witness said if any one had been lost hi
book would have shown it. The importance
of Mr.. Proudft's testimony was undoubtedly
great.
When he had concluded
GENERAL LUKE E. WRIGHT
made his argument to the jury 1t was pro
nounced by those who have known him Iona
to have been the ablest and most trench AMI
effort of his life. 1t was substantially al
follows:
The defendant, C. Mundinger, was indicted
under the several counts read to you. I'm
der the ruling of his honor the prosecution
was required TO elect which particular
charge they would proceed upon. Under
this ruling the encouragement selected the
Mrs. Mary Warner transaction, which has
been described for you in the several dis
tinct forms OF embezzlement, larceny, breach
of trust and obtaining money under false
pretenses. The object OF this wss to meet
any view of the case. In the present case
the State announces that only two counts are
regarded by il, namely, larceny and obtain
ing money under false pretenses. Let us
address ourselves TO the facts of the case. In
order to maintain either charge the State
must show that the defendant obtained 81
under false pretenses, as the count charges
him with obtaining 81 of money. The allie
CATION of the indictment is that the repre-
sentation made by the defendant to the
cashier on the check was lalse. 1t is proper
for me to say here that representation may
be made by acts as we'll as by words and a
check made out by man is representation
as valid as If the words had been spoken. So
that when the defendant presents a check,
which states that dollars worth of buttons
has been returned, it is representation.
Having a clear idea of the charge, now let
us examine the facts. The proof is that
Mrs. Warner bought 81 65 worth of goods at
The defendant made a check
Of it and duplicate, which he gave to Mrs.
Warner for her use. He did not act under
he rules of the house, which required him
10 make a check disclosing the amount of
goods she bought, the money she gave him,
and the price of the goods. He made out
bill showing purchase of 81 65; then he
put ST by buttons returned. Now, gentlemen,
here is false entry. Here is a statement
by Mundinger to the cashier that dollars
worth OF buttons were returned. He admits
hat. He writes it down. If there were no
more in the transaction than this, you would
'ay there is something rotten in Denmark.
Mr.. Shouse tells you he saw Mundinger carry
he goods TO the counter, hand in the check,
receive So So change. In point of fact only
IS 35 was returned to Mrs. Warner. He says
urther that he saw Mundinger move away
rom the desk and divide the money. He
ollowed him, saw him return the proper
,hange to Mrs. Warner, stroke his beard and
,ut the dollar in his pocket. The proof is
hat the written rules of the house are that
very amount of goods shall be put on a
heck, on which is the name of the salesman
t was not proper for Mundinger to wait on
unless all the salesmen were busy,
II a customer specially asked for him. We
lave no proof that Mrs. Warner called for
Darling testifss that on this
day many of the clerks were idle
Why didn't Mundinger call a cash boy?
There are many cash boys there to take up
he money of the customers. The sales
nan stands behind the counter and
when he makes a sale, he calls a cash boy.
The proof is that sometimes when all the
Joys are engaged, salesman takes up the
ash, though it is against the rule. That is
n rush; but there was no rush at this time.
Why does Mundinger find it necessary to act
8 salesman and cash boy? His duty was in
he front of the house; his duty was not
ack at the cashiers desk. The cash boy
cts as sort of go-between, and it is only
ashier's desk when the cash boys are all
ngsged. There was no excuse for Mr. Mum
niger to go back in this transaction with
he money. He had to have place and time
} take out the dollar. 1t was when no one
as looking at him in transit from the desk |
} the counter. We find then Mr. Mundin-
er's conduct irregular in the extreme. What |
oes it mean? Mr.. Shouse tells you what it |
leans. Mundinger's erratic and irregular |
purse goes far toward explaining the whole |
ansaction. His defense is that Mr.. Rogers |
)me into the store about or o'clock |
! the afternoon to return some but |
ms; that he was busy and told her to come |
ack. She did SO, and got her money,
Pillar. How does this tally with the state
ents of Shouse, Clough and Darling, who
y there was no crowd in the house?
here were only three or four customers
resent; that there was a superabundance of
erks unoccupied, and that he, consequently,
as not busy. l aIlude to this to show the |
of Mrs. Rogers's statement
ct us look at the intrinsic probability of the
Dry. 1t was the rule of the house that when
'ods were returned a return check must be
AIDE out The gentlemen on the other side
EN- to think MundInger is above all rules,
ID that they were made only Cor the subor-
mates. How could dishonest or careless
lesmsn be discovered, if this rule did not
ply to him? No salesman had the power
make return check. That delicate duty
IS intrusted TO Shouse and Mundinger.
ley could not then dispense with it. 1t is
It right for every customer who buys goods
return them just as they see proper and
mp them on the counter. The delicate
ty of deciding what goods might be re-
rned was left to these two superiors. Here,
en-, 1t was his duty to make out the return
eek. Mundinger says he didn't do that,
It he just thought of the dollars worth of
Ittons returned and put it in Mrs Warmers
II. 1t is true, gentlemen of the Jury, that
u can't send a man to the penitentisry,
that was true. Nor can you send
m there for gross carelessness. He,
wever, is a skillful business man.
e knows the rules of the house,
IS there to enforce them, and he can't
cad ignorance. l am not here to show you
at he ought to be convicted because of an
regularity. Let US look at this case. Here
Is lady who wanted her buttons returned
ow long would it require to write a return
eek? Before you accept mis- statement you
ust remember that it takes less trouble and
ne to follow the usual course than to
lrsue the course he did 1t would have
en- much easier TO have sent for a cash boy
I'd pursue the regular course. l submit it
you If his course is not good presumptive
idence of guilt. 1t is argued by the de-
nse that this was a shorthand method OF
ting dollar. The fact is, it was long
md method, consuming twice as much
ID the other witness also. 1t is said that
undinger was victim OF conspiracy, OF
lich Shouse was the head and Darling the
il. The counsel on the other side grow
oquent on these demoniac men, who were
alous of the rising popularity of Mum
nger and wanted to crush him. What evil
nee have you, gentlemen, that Shouse and
arling and Clough conspired? What proof
We you of motive for 1t? Il there any rea-
q TO believe that Shouse was Jealous of
undinger? The world is large enough for
III. So far from Shouse being Jealous of
dndIDger, there never was a jar between