Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-10-30
REYNOLDS ACQUITTED.
THE COURT ADVISES THE JURY
TO ACQUIT HIM,
On the Ground of Insufiiciency of
Evidence-The Remaining In
dictments Dismissed.

Eyidence-The Remaining In
dictments Dismissed.
At the opening of Department One of the
Superior Court yesterday morning, at
o'clock, all the parties concerned in the
trial of Thomas H. Reynolds charged with
Justification of the records of the Secretary
of States office were present, except Gen.
eral Carey, who had conducted the Burns,
Reynolds cases on behalf of the State and
the jury. The first thing to be determined
was as to whether Judge Murphy would
grant the motion of defendants counsel to
advise the jury TO acquit on the ground
that the prosecution had failed to show
that the accused committed the act alleged
in the indictment.
| The Court asked District Attorney Buck
ley if he was prepared to have the case
proceed in the absence of his associate, and
that officer replied in the affirmative Coun-
sci for the defendant was then asked if they
desired to be heard on their own motion.
the Judge stating at the same time that he
had spent much of the night in studying
| the testimony put in by the defense, and
was prepared to act on the motion. 1t was
! therefore agreed by counsel to submit the
! question without argument. Judge Muir
! ply then said:
While there may be some circumstances in
! proof already that have not been explained
away, still, as the District Attorney knows, and
everybody should know. you cannot convict any
person, whoever he may be, whether high or
low, on suspicious, nor on surmises, nor on tes-
tImOny that does not establish, beyond q reas-
enable doubt, the guilt of the party Of the charge
Of which he is placed on trial. There is really
but one act of this defendant, far as the tes-
tilnony points directly to the commission Of this
crime, and that is simply the entry in the fee
book of this item of So The evidence of Mr.
| Gale establishes the fact that for weeks for
months, for nearly all the time that Mr. Rev
nolds was in the Office he was perhaps absent
sometimes three or four times a week and there
was no one week in which he was in the Office
during all the time. ltalsO appears in evidence
from the testimony of Mr. Gale that the original
ter; that that blOtter was accessible to every
clerk in the office that Mr.. Burns was in the
habit OF making entries in that blotter Mr. Gale
was IN the habit OF making entries in il Mr.
DGn1orth was in the habit OF making entries in
it, and, in fact every clerk connected with the
Secretary Of states Office was in the habit of
using that biotter. BY whom the entry of SO
was made in the blOtter if ii was made AT
all, or by whom the entry of S24 was made in
the blotter if made at all, there is not scintilla
of evidence. There is not q scintilla of evidence
here 10 show that Mr. REYNOLDS ever saw thot
entry in the blotter; there is not a scintiIfa of
evidence TO show but what the entry in the blot
ter was for So. The evidence of Mr.. Danforth
Is that when Mr.. Reynolds, being absent would
return from wherever he was, he would take
up the blOtter and that he would COPY the en-
tries from the blotter into the fee book There
Is not particle of evidence, and, on the con-
trary, it Is not contended here, that Mr. Reyn-
Olds received the S24; there is no evidence that
he had knowledge of the fact that S2i was paid
the check which is offered here in evidence as
a part, or as one of the links against the defend
ant if my recollection is correct was indorsed
by Mr.. Burns No part of the Endorsement is
connected with the defendant; 50 far as the
check shows, Mr.. Reynolds is in no wise CON
nected with it. Had that check been ineOrsed
by Mr.. Reynolds, as other checks that were in
evidence Endorsed by him, it may have been a
very grave Circumstance against him, but the
cheek IL this individual case, as my recollection
IS was never Endorsed by Mr.. Reynolds 1t
has not been traced into his possession, nor
has there been the least knowledge on the
part of Mr.. Reynolds shown of this transac-
ton II looks very much like tine case
that l stated Neutrality-suspicious. a man is
employed as bookkeeper in one of our large
stores WneTe there are four or five clerks whose
business and duty il is that the moment trans
action takes place to enter it upon the blotter or
journal Now take that as a suppOsable case,
ana IL Is not unreasonable; SuppOSing that a wear
after this boOkkeeper had left the employ of
that store, that entries made were found to be
false, and he was prosecuted for emheZzlement
OF his employer and the only fact against him
was that his usual custom and his duty was to
copy from the blOtter into the ledger, and that
he did So and that the blotter was lost or mis-
laid and could not be found. Now you have the
circumstance against that man that the money
was received, and paid by the customers at such
at such date You have the other criminatiye
fact that the ledger shows that there were i'm
proper entries made. Would ii be cOntended
for Il moment, would any District Attorney for
moment, or would Court for moment allow
That case to go to the jury and allow the District
Attorney to ask for q conviction on that ground
alone? 1t seems to me not. ! would certainly
set it aside in an instant if verdict of guilty
was entered. Would set it aside on the ground
that the testimony was insufficient, and what is
the difference between that case and this? You
have the similar circumstance of 81 being
paid by Dewey & Co. into the Secretary
of States office. Who received il or to
whom it was paid there is not Acin-
ulla of evidence outside OF the fact that the
check was Endorsed by Mr.. Burns, and the nat
ural inference is that Mr.. Burns received it.
from the fact that he Endorsed it. He, OF some
body acting under his direction, received it.
Now you have that fact to start with-that is
the basis of the prosecution-that this S2l was
sent by Dewey d Co. to the Secretary of States
office and received, presumably, from the in
dorsement on the check, by Mr.. Burns. Mr.
Reynolds IS in no wise connected with that
transaction. As l said before there is not a
scintilla of proof that he ever saw that check:
that he ever had any knowledge that the sd
was paid. And, invoking the rule which was
so urgently pressed upon me by General Carey
ana 1t IS the correct rule-that we are to pre-
sumo that public officers do their duty-aud If
that be true then it is fair to presume acting
under that presumption, that Mr. Reynolds per-
formed his duties legitimately, until the CON
tTary is shown. Now, say there is not q parti-
Gle OF evidence in this case, 50 far as l am aware
OF, that connects Mr.. Reynolds with this transac-
ton, which is the Subject-matter of this prosecu-
ton. And to allow a case so entirely and abso-
lutely barren OF any proof to go to jury and
take the chances OF Il jury, from other causes,
conyicting any citizen to my mind would be
the hlght OF cruelty and wrong, and feel it my
duty, unless there is something shown to NE 10
the contrary, to direct thejury TO acquit the de
tendant.
ADVISING THE JURY.
A recess was then ordered until 10
O'Clock, at which hour the jury came in
and the Court reconvened. Judge Murphy
recited TO the jurors the facts connected
with the motion made by the defense. and
repeated to them his conclusions. He
then-after quoting the provisions of the
Code governing such prOceeding-adyised
the jury to acquit the defendant on the
ground of insutficiency of evidence
General Carey, who had entered the
Courtroom in the meantime, entered ex-
ceptions to the order of the Court and the
instructions to the jury.
The latter then retired, and after an alb
sence of a few minutes returned to the
Courtroom with verdict of acquittal
\ COLD DAY FOR INDICTMENTS.
Grove L. Johnson, OF counsel for the de-
Tense, then addressed the Court concerning
the disposal Of the remaining indictments
against Reynolds-four in number-for
alleged Justification of the records. He
read Section 1885 of the Penal Code, in sup
port of motion to have them all dis.
missed, claiming that to do so would be in
the interest of Justice. Counsel referred to
the fact that Reynolds had been tried for
ENLIGHTENMENT and acquitted, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the prosecution had only to
prove the commission of any one of long
list of alleged offenses ofthat character. Also
that Judges Sullivan and Van Fleet Sitting
jointly, while dismissing the remaining
indictments for embezzlement, declined to
dismiss those for Justification of records
only on the ground that the Court
had not heard any testimony in those
cases, and preferred to give the prose-
cution an opportunity to substantiate
the charges, if possible. Counsel
for the people had such opportunity, and
presumably selected their strongest case.
Havipo borav-ar r,ffarIv faiIa5 10 cnD,,aot