Daily globe., 1883-07-31

Der, 1882, for my salary as an officer of
the army for said months, I knowing at
the time that the certificates on the pay
accounts were false; that the several
amounts charged were not rightfully due
me, as the same had already been paid
me by, and vouchers transferred to, Messrs.
j. II. Squier & Co.; that the vouchers Civ
en- toDawson. Smith & Scheffer were fraud
ulent and worthless, and were made by me
with intent to defraud the said Dawson,
Smith d Scheffer, and to deter them from
instituting proceedings for the collection
of the Indebtedness due by me to the said
Dawson: Smith & Scheffer.
WHAT CONSTITUTES CRIME.
Now, gentlemen of the court. if the evil
dence produced by the prosecution during
this trial sustains these specifications you
will under oath have to find me guilty of
the charge, and brand me forever as GRIM
inal.
The word crime, as defined by human
understanding, includes generally
felonlous intent this intent furnishes
in these specifications the very ingredients
to the offense contained in the charge.
The intent and the felonious intent on my
part in the transactions with Mr.. Scheffer,
of the firm of Dawson, Smith & Co., of st.
Paul, the intent to defraud Mr.. Scheffer is
the very gist of this case. Have
been guilty of such intent
Let us examine the testimony. Under
the rules of practice it is not necessary
for the prosecution to show by testi-
mony the felonious intent of the act itself,
as proved, carries with it the conviction of
such Infamous intent. The acts charged
in these specifications have not been denied
or disproved by me, but l do solemnly de-
clare to you that there never has existed on
my part any intent to deceive or defraud
Mr.. Scheffer. Has the prosecution proved
differently? Do my acts in these trans
actions as brought to light on this trial,
carry with them intention of fraud or
felonious intent? Has any living witness
testified within your hearing, gentlemen of
the court, that, at any time, intended to
defraud Mr.. Scheffer or any one else, has
any voice outside of the human world
whispered to you, or has the conviction
stolen into your souls by inspiration that
and guilty of felonious intent and GRIMM
| al acts? On the other hand, does not the
testimony of Mr.. Scheffer, the only wit
ness who comes to the surface in these
money transactions with me, positively
state, under oath, that these accounts now
under consideration were never to be col
lected, and that it was so expressly stipu-
lated by me that they should never be col
lected? Does not Mr.. Scheffer, under oath,
state that he never believed that / intend
ed to defraud him? Did not Mr.. Scheffer,
under oath, state that I expressly stipulat-
ed that he should hold my accornt for
November and December, 1882, until re-
deemed by the proceeds of money deposit
ed to my credit in the treasury of the
United States? Has not Mr..
Scheffer, at all times and up to
the date when I redeemed these
accounts, conscientiously abstained from
presenting them to or collecting them of
the United States pay department? will
here repeat some of the questions and
answers in Mr.. Scheffer's testimony.
Q. (By accused.) Mr.. Scheffer, after
having refreshed your memory since Civ
ing direct testimony, please state to the
court as matter of fact whether or not
you have ever at any time presented or
caused to be presented for collection to
the pay department of the United States
army my pay accounts for November and
| December, 1882?
| A. 1t seems not, colonel. I stated on
| information that had, on information of
my assistant cashier; but, on speaking to
him again, I found / was mistaken.
| Q. (By accused). Mr.. Scheffer, after hav-
ing refreshed your memory since giving
direct testimony, please state to the court,
as matter of fact, whether or not when
sending you my pay accounts for Novem-
Der and December, 1882, / especially
stipulate that you should hold them for re-
demption by me by the proceeds of money
deposited to my credit in the treasury of
the United States?
A. You expected to take them up in that
way; yes sir.
Q. (By accused). Mr.. Scheffer, please
state to the court whether or not my
November and December, 1882, pay ac-
counts were accepted by you as personal
security for my note of $500 cashed by you
August IL, 1882, and a certain overdraW
balance due by me to your bank?
A. l gave my testimony to that effect;
yes sir.
And further on:
Q. (By accused). Did you not place to
my credit with your bank the amount, less
customary interest, of my November and
December, 1882, pay accounts of your own
volition, for your own reasons and without
my knowledge and consent?
A. I did, colonel, and so testified.
Q. (By accused). Please state to the
court at what time, and how many months
after date of maturity. as matter of fact,
you presented or caused to be presented
for payment at the United States pay de-
partment my August, 1882, pay accounts
4. That was some time in March
Q. (By accused). 1888?
A. March, 1888; yes sir.
@. (By accused). That would make how
many months after maturity?
A. That would be seven months.
Q. (by accused.) Please state to the
courtiwhether or not you have at any time
believed, or believe now, that I intended
to defraud you or the bank which you rep
resent of any money due you by me?
A. I did not think so. only thought
you were guilty of carelessness.
THE sCHEFFER TESTIMONY.
So much of the testimony of Mr.. Schef-
fer, who also has sworn in his cross-exam-
ination that I have paid him every cent of
my Indebtedness. Add to this my sworn
deposition, laying bare these trans
actions with Mr.. Scheffer. We are the
only two witnesses upon this matter and
| fha