Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-11

the money Tor spool OF 0OSS. " nat does
this mean? He didn't make out any check.
Yet the rules of the house were invariable
on that point. He went through none Of the
forms prescribed by law. There were cash
boys all around him. He violated every
rule of the house. He received money from
the woman for silk she bought apparently.
1t was plainly Perceptible that she meant to
| buy six yards of silk and that she paid for
| them. There is no doubt of it. He takes
| the money by the cashiers desk, and does
| not stop there. II this does not mean appro-
| priating other peoples money what does?
| Mr.. Edgington says that if he did get the
money Tor the silk floss it is probable that he
| loared her that money. Now, isn't
| that extremely far-fetched? l leave it
to you, as reasonable men, is that
a reasonable thing. You are not blocks and
stones, but reasoning men. This is the
| himsiest possible excuse. There is no proof
Whatever of this. 1t Is thrown out as a per-
| haps. 1t is too attenuated. Now ii the
| negro woman returned any goods anexchsDge
| check would have been made out. The
| trouble about the defendants theory is that
it is a mere theory, and that ii is contra
dicted by Cross and Patton, who say there
was no check made out. Why did he vio-
| late all the rules of the house? He went
| out of his way to sell the goods to wrap the
| goods, and to act as cash-boy. Mr.. Patton
| says he saw the spool OF silk delivered TO
1 lnc lie uclCllOdil'. you SEE, Will nave
| to guess again. Mrs. Anderson doesn't even
know whether she bought il at Lowenstein's
| or not. She does not state that she bought
| the silk OF Mr.. Muudinger. Now / propose
| to come 10 Mr.. Mundinger's statement di
| rectly- The theories of the defense rzrrr
| speculation, thrown out to raise doubts. i
| know II Is usual 10 plead a mans character
| But you have got to meet an issue like
| this with facts. Good character cannot
wipe out such positive, unequivocal testi-
mony that OF Messrs. Patton, Proudfit
and Cross. Now what Is a reasonable donbt2
l want to argue this case, not on generalities
but on the facts, the law and the evidence
| / only desire that your verdict may be
| Just one. The speaker read authorities on
| the subject Of reasonable doubt. The
| question is one not of vague possibility. In
the very nature OF things the law does not
| admit OF mathematical accuracy. You
must be morally sure, that's all. You can
admit of no prejudice either way. Can you
1 say that you are fairly convinced that the
defendant did not take that $l2 IS? Can
| you say that you are satisfied that he did
| not take it to keep ii from his employers?
Cases have been read 10 you to the
effect that in order TO b. embezzlement
there must be felonious intent. II
you are not satisfied that this was
| done with an improper motive, you must
acquit him. But, as | said before, you must
| look at the surrounding circumstances. In
the two cases quoted it was the duty of the
| employees to put the money collected by them
| in their pockets and afterward settle. In
these cases the court decided that the fact
that the employe put money in his pocket
was not evidence of embeZzlement. But our
case is different. Mundinger had no author
ity TO put 3. LoWenstein & Bros. money in
his pocket. The rules all demanded that
he should send the money to the cashier. 1t
means only one thing, and that is that he
meant TO appropriate IT. If he was in the
habit of putting in his pocket all the money
received by him during the week, and then
afterward settled with his employers for il,
/ can understand readily that putting
money in his pocket would not
be sufficient TO convict him of en-
bezzlement. Mundinger had no duty to
receive money and then account for it.
There was no legitimate reason for him 10
put that money in his pocket. He has denied
that he has ever received the money, and he
has given proof of his intent by never re-
turning it. Has there ever been al expla-
nation to you of what he did with that
money? No, he never intended TO return it.
Mr.. Edgington's view is that there was a
band OF "Katydids" in the house of Il.
LoSenstein & Bros, to get an increase Of
salary and ruin Mundinger. Just look how
nonsensical is this. 1t is SO flimsy it falls to
the ground. 1t is thinner than a gossamer
web. What a way is that to get their salaries |
raised. The idea that sixteen or eighteen |
men conspired to lie away Mundinger's char |
acter to get their salaries raised is preposter-
Gus. Most OF these men never have testified |
in this case at all. If you dislike a man,
you must have had a breach with him |
to being with. -You won't lie about
a man unless you have a grudge; you don't
kill man unless you have a motive TO do
it. The human heart must be almost riven
in twain before man can kill another; and
a man must be black death before he will
come into court to swear away his fellows
character. What reason had Shouse to do
this? He was popular, forsooth. Why it
stein & Bros. to have popular men connected
with the store. Shouse must have known
that he must have popular men in order TO
stand well with his employers. Why don't the
defense bring some witness to prove piece OF
petty spite on the part of Shouse against Mum
dinger? Bring some mean words thai Shouse
had ever said of Mundinger? Where is the
proof? Is il possible that Mr.. Shouse has
had a secret, lurking hate of Mundinger in
his heart, and yet this hate has always shown
itself in acis of kindness, in help
ing him upward? Bring your common
sense to bear on this fimsy theory. This
town has been ransacked, but no witness has
been brought to show one word or act.
Neither Mr.. Merritt nor Mr.. Gerber say that
L aLtOn sdiQ ne WAS gong 10 u1dhc any untrue |
concerning Mundinger. What il
there in the evidence of Mrs. Colby and these
gentlemen to materially affect Mr.. Patton's
veracity. These conversations not of so
much importance after all. Take for in
stance a witness statement No two of you
gentlemen would probably report it alike.
says that from long study of
,asea, he has come to the conclusion that
,uch evidence is almost worthless. l now
come to the alleged contradiction between
Shouse and Sims. Now both of these gen.
.lemen are perfectly honest. i contend that =
Sims's statement, instead OF breaking down
Shouse, corroborates him. From the state
nents of these gentlemen it appears that
Mundinger was about to make confession.
What did they want Sims to wait for? 1t
vas because Mundinger wanted to confess. If |
lie wanted to make an explanation, why did
ne pause and say he would see a lawyer
irst? In substance, whatever differ |
,nce in the phraseology there may
,e, the substance is the same. !
treat stress is laid on the fact that Mum
linger was not given an opportunity. Why, (
What better opportunity had he than when
;house told him he was charged with rob-
'ing his employer 1t occurs to me there
vas a magnificent opportunity for explana-
ion Just then. Why was there not an ex-
,lanation then, instead Of prayer Tor inter 4
ession, an appeal for mercy? Now, what
yer you may say as to the Inconsistencies s
etween Merritt and Patton who contra dicts s
ross? Merritt says that Cross said he saw 2
wo suspicious TRANSACTIONS on Mundingei's +
art, but he couldn't swear that he con-
erted il 10 his own use. Well, he couldn't ,
wear to that; but Merritt does not say that
ross stated Mundinger had not pocketed the
honey. Who is Merritt, anyhow? Why,
$ thorough partisan witness OF Mr.. Mum
niger could come into court. He says q
e was not interested in the case especially, :
ut the proof shows he was going .
bout winking TO Mundinger to take q
lis man or that on the jury.
lr. Edgington says that the Lowenslein's
Iere manipulated in this matter; that they q
re purse-proud. Now, is there word Of
violence on that point in this case? Would
on not have done the same thing as they?
ught they TO have looked upon this matter 1
silence and in confinement? / have not
ade the analysis Of this case that / should
Ike to have done. There is a considerable j
mount of evidence l could not touch upon.
only want TO leave the case with you,
moving that you will do your duty.
COLONEL GEORGE CAN'T 4
'oke substantially as follows for the de-
nse: Gentlemen of the Jury-The highest Y
atty that man can perform on earth is to sit
judgment on the life liberty of his
llow-man. The learned counsel said that
would appeal to your sympathies and 10 -
,ur passions, and he might have added. to =
,ur reason. / would address you coun- u
usually address iuries. As listened to
m, as be swept the cords of your passions 4
I'd your reason, thought what a noble
ing is mani He has passion, prejudice,
ason and affection. He Is the high priest -
nature. Now, when you judge man, it ia
you will be judged hereafter. 1t should
with mercy, with kindness, and with ten S
rness. How many mistakes occur every
"; mistakes of bookkeeping, of judgmenil
hen YOU undertake to take his liberty from
In, and you undertake TO send pang and u
.artache into his family and cast dishonor y
his little children, you must try him On
CHER grounds than usual. The learned