The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1885-11-05
FOUND GUILTY.
A Sentence to the Penitentiary for Ten
Years for Grand Larceny Likely.

A Sentence to the Penitentiary for Ten
Years for Grand Larceny Likely.
NEW York, October 2S.-The trial of
Ferdinand Ward was continued to-day.
George j. Chambers, stenographer in the
case of Holt against Warner, and George
E. Spencer, cashier of the firm of Grant &
Ward, were examined briefly, but their
testimony developed nothing new. The
prosecution then rested. Kx-Judge Coch
ran opened for the defense. He said that
his client had been hour.ded by the press,
by financial men and by members of a
prominent family, but the jury had
only to consider the evidence and
render a verdict accordingly. Fish was
convict, and his condition when sworn
liable for perjury or anything less than
murder. Fish comes animated by venom
and swears to anything that comes into
his lead. FIsh's testimony could not be
considered without corroborative testi-
mony. Upon the evidence a verdict of
ner, for the defense, testified that he knew
Ward and recognized the check for
$71 800 which Le had received in the or
diuary course of business. After certifca-
tion by the Marine Bank it was depos-
tied in the American Exchange Bank.
On cross-examination Warner said that
he had received the check in Wards pri.
vate office. The amount was the profit on
certain investments with Grant & Ward on
Government contracts. Tne differences
due on the investments resulted in his get
ting the check for S7l 500. All the contracts
were made direct with Ward in his private
office. On May he received a contract for
much larger sum than 81 500, which only
represented the profit on the old transac-
tion. Mr.. Warner did not know where the
contracts were, but thought that possibly
he had some in his possession. Julien
7. Davies, the receiver for the
firm of Grant & Ward, testified that he
took possession of the assets of Grant &
Ward on May s, 1884. In one package,
where 125 bonds should have been, 124 were
found to be missing. VIM. G. Smith testi-
fled that between May and May he had
been negotiating loans for the firm of
Grant & Ward, but did not know what be-
came of the money realized. This witness
virtually closed the case for. the defense.
General Tracy for the defense, offered to
allow the jury to test whether or not one
could use the telephone and another stand
ing by him could distinguish voices. Gem
eral Tracy summed up the evidence for the
defense, laying particular stress upon the
fact that Fish, as a convict, was not amen
able to any penalty for perjury, and hold
ing that he was urged on by vindictive
hatred ef the accused. Colonel Fellows
summedup for the Site, contrasting the
actions of Ward and Fish at the time of tae
failure. The former ran away, the latter
awaited the catastrophe like man. Judge
Barrett began his charge at $3.50. He de-
fined the law and read the statute cover
ing the crime charged. The question
was as to whether the defendant had an
intent to defraud, and of such a character
as to deceive a person of ordinary pru-
dence. Had Ward procured the $1 800
in such way? The whole ase rested on
one point: Did Ward obtain the certifica-
tion of the 81, 800 check? 1t was for the
jury to decide on the evidence of Jas. D.
Fish and his brother, the testimony of
neither being contradicted. Ward was not
alone on trial, but Justice, too, was on
trial. Public clamor should not influence
the jury, and, last of all, money should
not interfere with the verdict. The jury
retired at 7:25. At 1915 the jury entered
the courtroom and the testimony of John
n. Carr, the receiving teller of the Marine
bank, was read. 1t covered the transac-
tions in regard to the checks upon which
the indictment was found. The jury then
again retired. At 12:45 the jury returned
to court and rendered verdict of larceny
in the first degree, penalty ten years, with
in discretion of the court.