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

petty cash book is clearly entitled to no
credit. That he kept some small memoran-
dunn book which he used for purposes of his
own is sufficiently proven, but that it was
one of the acCO int books of the firm is as
clearly disproved. The plaintiff testified that
it was not one of the books Of the firm, but
that it contained entries of all cash items,
showing the amounts taken by Lovejoy, and
all amt UNITS lie teived in the business, includ-
ing the items dropped in other books, to con-
ceal such. Ttking How absurd! To falsify
the journals and ledgers to conceal Lovejoy's
distractions, under the penalty of shooting,
and at the same time display the same alb
straction plainly on another book Of the finn
the cash book.
Seventh-The fact shown by the evil
dence that during three months in
the fall of 1881 in making the monthly
entries from the time books of
the foreman the plaintiff enter ed on such
day-books ten fictitious names, crediting each
with u considerable amount as due for labor,
whereby such names and amounts were
posted and put upon the mont Iy pay-rols,
and bank checks of the firm were returned
with like checks for the employees to the book
keeper to be credited on the books and passed
over to the foreman for distribution to the
employees for whom they were drawn. And
the further facts shown by the evidence and
admitted by the plaintiff, that he procured
the money upon all these bank checks to said
ten fictitious persons. Plaintiffs testimoi y,
that the checks were to actual persons, eau
not be credited. He does not pretend to re-
member any of them. This matter has been
ventilated for upwards of two years. yet no
one has appeared that ever knew any of them.
The foreman of every crew of m n then EN-
plOyed. all swear that they never knew or
heard of am such men,. And the substantial
fact, that the plaintiff got the money on all
these checks, is undisputed, and it is not pre-
tended that Lovejoy had fany knowledge of
these checks, or any connection with that
transacted.
GREW SUDDENLY RICH.
Eighth-The fact that when the plaintiff
went into the emplo, ,ment of FaruhaIn g.
Lovejoy in the spring of 1879, that for more
than year afterwards he represented to his
creditors and others that he was wholly with
out property or means; that he suffered judg-
ments to be taken against him for small
amounts for house rent and a butchers bill,
and being examined upon oath in proceedings
supplementary to execution testified that he
was without means. And the further fact
that when discharged by Farnham & Lovejoy
in September, 1882. he had at least $4,000 TO
put into business in which he then engaged.
His testimony now that he la money during
this time puts him in the dilemma that if his
present testimon' is true, that in the supple
mentary proceedings he committed perjury
and is unworthy of credit now.
Ninth-His confessions to Reed which first
lSdu " HIS UcttCilOn. IlSel ; testimony Is
consistent and corresponds with his
statements to his eiuplo, ers and TO
DIR Cranbie. While his conferences
with the plaintiff were taking place
And the comparisons tally with what the
other evidence shows the facts to have been
The payment by the plaintiff to Reed of $5uO,
and his giving to Reed his We notes for 81, 600.
parable to Reed without interest is admitted.
and plaiutiHs explanation, es pecially the use
to be ma lie OF the notes and III vieg of their
terms. lacks probability.
Tentl-The conduct of the parties and what
was said between them when Loveioi- an
nounced Unexpectedly to the plaintiff his dis
charge bls the trn, throw much positive light
on tue cal facts OF the case. Tue plaintltf's
own account Of it is that. returning from tne
East in September, 1882. he was told by Love
JOY that they had enough help in the office.
Plaintiff was ''conSideraJly astonshed.' = and
upon demanding the reason was told by Lo5e-
joy that it was not his doing and for the
plaintiff ITO speak to Farnham about it," Mr..
Farnham refused any explanation. On fur
ther complaint Loveioy gave the plaintiff q
letter OF Recommendation and eypresseu q
wish that friendly feelings between item
might continue. Ceasing to relate the con-
versation the plaintiff adds as at the close of
the interview .'Then was the time he (Love-
joy said that if gave him away in his social
relations that he, wouli shoot me-"
" INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOR.
1T Is appafent that the pialntln account
of the Interview is consistent with the testi-
mony of Farnham Lovejoy, who were sus-
pieiaus but without proof to warrant any
charge, But it is wholly inconsistent with
any guilt on the part of Lovejoy. Would
not the plaintiff have inquired OF Lovejoy if
Farnham had not suspected these irregulari-
ties? Would Lovejoy, had he been guilty,
have sent plaintiff TO Farnham for explana-
tons and passed out of the Office himself
without word to plaintiff not to disclose the
matter to Farnhamy Had plaintiff been in
nocent and Lovejoy guilty would pla ntiff
when he "tackled'' Farnham have failed to
suspect that his discharge arose from such
irregularities Of Lovejoy and would he have
refrained from alluding to it2
An the evidence and all the variad faota