St. Paul daily globe., 1885-12-20

cradle amounts of money. proceeds Of sales
in the lumber yards of the firm were paid to
the plaintiff by William Crombie, who had
charge of making such sales. These moneys
were entered on the day-books by the
plaintiff US received and being charged
to cash, and credited to the proper
-mpersonal account as ''lath," lumber" :"
'shingles," etc. But the plaintiff would
! drop the charge to cash at the day book
and never transfer it to the journal, nor post
it in the ledger. The result was that the ex-
act amount of the items of moneys so dropped
would have to be abstracted and taken from
the moneys of the firm in the hands of plain
tiff to make the moneys in his hands CORE
spond and agree with the cash balance in the
ledger account. In all the cases of dropping
the day book entries were checked and re-
| checked by the plaintiff with the same Marks
which as to the other items on the day book
indicated that they had been transferred to
the journal and again examined by subse-
quent comparison with the journal entry, and
required no further attention.
LAID IT TO LOvEJoY.
The plaintiff admitted that he so falsified
the books and that the effect of such falls fica-
tion was as above stated. and that moneys to
the amount of all items so dropped were in
fact distracted, and that he purpoSely falSi-
fed the books to conceal such distractions
but he testified that all such moneys
were distracted and taken by, Mr.
IONCJOy, Oue Vi tue HdTtHeTS dIlu Uudt liie
books were so falsifed by plaintiff at Mr.
Lovejoy's demand. The plaintiffs theory
that Lovejoy distracted the money and di-
rected the falls fication of the books rests on
plaintiTs testimony alone, being fully and
positively denied by the testimony of MIR.
LovejOy. The defendants theory that all
such moneys were abStracted and embezzled
by the plaintiff himself is sustained by all the
other evidence in the case:
First The fully admitted fact that the
money was distracted while in plaintiffs
hands as cashier and that he purposely falsi-
fed the books to conceal such distractions is
of itself well nigh conclusive evidence that he
embezzled the moneys. 1t is matter of COM
mon oil servation that when men in such posi-
tious embezzle of their employers they falsify
the books in their charge to hide the crime.
1t is incredible that any man in such a situa-
ton would permit such distractions by an
other, himself having no part Or share therein,
though accountable for the moneys, and with
his own hands falsify the books TO hide the alb
stract1onS, thus making record which,
if discovered would ordinarily be sufficient
to convict him of felony. No man of ordiu-
ary discretion and intelligence could possibly
be prevailed upon to do this. and plaintiff
lacks neither shrewdness or intelligence.
Second-Plaintiff's testimony is tlat Love
joy took away the money in such amounts as
he wanted, and without any reference to
particular cash items taken in. and that the
plaintiff afterwards dropped items to cover
such taking by Lovejoy. The evidence shows
that the items so dropped by plaintiff were
entire items often of odd amounts in dollars
and cents, yet when the plaintiff was I'M
eXpectedlY discharged. il happened that the
cash account on the ledger balanced with the
plaintiff S cash on hand as cashier A re-
markabe coincidence if plaintiffs s testimony
we're to be credited. If the pla ntiff himself
abstrscted the money he would naturally
measure his distractions with his drop
pings" and then keep the balance perfect to
avoid liability TO inquiry which might lead to
detection.
Third-The admitted fact that the drop
pings" continued as usual during considerable
periods of time when Lovejoy was away.
KEPT BANK ACCOUNT.
Fourth-The admitted fact that during a
large portion OF this time the plaintiff kept Il
bank accound al the Hennepiu County Saw
tngs bank under the fictitious name of
George s Thurman. and that at one time
there was suspicious coincidence between
deposit to that account and an amount just
previously dropped.
F1fth-The testimony of the plaintiff was,
tnal ne was Informed 10y Lovejoy and believe d
that LoveJoy was taking such money with
sucn c"nceanent and Justification of books
Tor honest use in some outside business of
ruhath ano Love1oy. is simply incredible.
NO ooGkkeeper of plaintiffs ability and eX-
perlence could credit such statement for an
instant, or would have permitted the moneys
Tor which as cashier he was responsible, to be
taken on such pretext. himself falsifying
the books to conceal such taking He would
10 10 some intenlsent manner have kept upon
the books an account of the moneys so
diverted to outside business NOT
only to show correctly the amount hut
for his own protectian and exoneration. Be
sides. this testimony Is wholly incons srent
with the plaintiffs answer in the civil action
Drought apAiQSt him Inv EArUharn & T,,v
wherein he states that he continually made
protests against such taking by Lovejoy, and
that Lovejoy threatened to shoot him if he
disclosed the same.
PETTY WITNESS.
Sixth-Plaintif' testimony respectinp the