The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-21
STUNNING LEGAL POINTS.
THE ROGERS CASE RAISES CUES,
TONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT.
Defendant's Counsel, Gen. @. p. M. Tur-
ner, Secures the First Knock Down
and Blood on the Prosecution-wha
an Arrest of Judgment Means.

In the case OF the State of Tennessee
against Il. A. Rogers, the late treasurer OF
the Memphis Merchants Zouaves, there
are several questions OF law involved OF an
unusually intricate nature, and which are
well calculated to excite the interest OF
lawyers.
The Merchants Zouaves is volunteer
military company, organized in pursuance
TO the act of Assembly of 1887. l. is no
part of the State militia. The company is
not chartered under the laws of the State,
and hence is neither a corporation abso.
lutte nor quasi, as the defendants counsel
contcnded and the court sustained. Rog-
ers was member OF this company and
held the office OF treasurer by election
AS such treasurer he was the custodian of
the company money. One Of the bylaws
of the company declares that all money de.
rived from prize drills, picnics, balls or
other sources should be considered and
was tho common property, share and share
alike, OF the members Of the company.
The indictment contained several counts.
In some of them defendant was charged
With larceny, in some with embe1lement
and in Others with fraudulent breach OF
trust. The ownership OF the money al
legged to have been stolen, embezlled or
lraudulently converted by defendant
Rogers was laid, in some counts, in the
Memphis Merchants Zouavcs, in others IL
was laid in McOmber, the secretary, and
in Others 1t was laid in Seyforth, member
OF the board OF trustees. The facts were
all against Rogers, and showed that no
had made away with n considerable sum
OF money.
When the State concluded its testimony
the defendant, by his counsel, Gen. q. L.
NJ. Turner, dcmurrcd TO the evidence on
the grounds that the ownership OF the
money could not be laid in the Merchants
Iouaves for the reason that the company
was not u corporation, real or quasi, and
that the ownership could not be laid In
McOmber and Seyfor,h because they did
not have possession OF it, and had no more
interest II than defendant, and that de-
icndaut, being one OF the joint owners Of
the common fund and in possession, could
not commit the larceny, embcEzlement or
fraudulent conversion of the same, that his
conversion Of the fund, while it may have
boon private fraud upon his co.owners,
was not fraud upon the public and could
not, therefore, be prosecuted rs a crime.
ten. Turner, for the defendant, and
Acknowledgement Peters, for the State, ar.
gued the several propositions before the
court ut length, and Judge DuBose, after
the most careful investigation and consid.
Grafton, felt himself most reluctantly CON
strained to rule for the defendant. The
encouragement was anxious TO have the
supreme court review the action Of Judge
DuBose, and 80 the defendant consented
TO jury and verdict ON the facts Of guilty
and then moved the court in arrest OF
judgment, which motion was sustained,
and from the ruling OF the court arresting
the judgment Gen. Peters prayed an ap-
peal, which was granted.
As a legal proposition II is conceded that
an arrest Of judgment operates ns nm ac-
quittal. Now the question IL, has the
general legal right Of appeal in
this casc2 II not, then Rogers is acquit-
ted, and his longer in Jail may
be false Imprisonment.