, 1889-09-26


session. SO long as Major Waters took
the goods, without the consent of those
in possession, and appropriated them to
his own use, the act was larceny, no
matter If the act was committed In
broad daylight and in the presence of
any number of persons. The act had
been admitted in the defense not
having offered any testimony to dis
prove 1t. Major Waters had found that
he could steal the goods In broad day
light as well as In the night. A SER
wants consent to the theft could not
transfer the property from the owner.
If Harry Hayward, Bob Inglis and all
others in the employ of tho relief COM
mittee had given Major Waters permis-
sion to help himself to all the goods he
wanted, such permission would not
shield Waters from the charge of lar
ceny. Tho goods were to be delivered
only upon orders from the relief COM
mittee, and Major Waters had obtained
these goods without the consent of those
in possession. Counsel read numerous
authorities in illustration. Defendant
had not taken these goods with the in
tention of returning them, and they had
never been returned. More than that,
there were the enrmarks of secrecy
about tho matter. There had been no
denial of the statement of Downs that a
load of goods had been taken to Waters
house at III O'Clock at night. And when
Raph, the man whom Downs had told
that he had seen the load go to Waters
house in the night, was put on the
stand by the prosecution, the defense
had objected to allowing him to tell the
story. Billy Scahorn, q man who had
been known i'll this city for years as
man of unquestioned veracity, had tcsti-
fed that he had hauled goods to Major
Waters house and that Waters had told
him not to let anybody sec him deliver
the goods, and that Waters had given
lief tent to close his mouth. Why had
not Waters taken tho stand and at
tempted to justify his actions by at
least saying he had not intended to steal
the goods? 1t had been claimed by the
defense that the goods taken by Major
Waters had been charged to him, but
an examination of the paper OH which
they were charged showed that they
were charged to him on August A, the
same day of the fire. OF course relief
supplies for sufferers by the fire had not
been sent before the fire, and, in any
event, Major Waters could not have re-
ceiyed. any. goods before the Tuesday
ioiiV"ilS the hIv' lehCe ~ is NOT very
likely the goods would have been
charged to him three days before he
received them. Mr.. Graves was fol-
lowed by
W. NJ. RfDPArH
for the defense. Mr.. Ridpath charac-
lied Mr.. Graves style of presenting the
case as unheard of unlawyerl Ike and
unfair and asserted that in his opening
argument he had given away his case
by his own admissions. The proofs
necessary to convict defendant of lar
ceny were absent in this case. Mr..
Graves had admitted that there must be
felonious intent, and this had not
been shown. Ii was not necessary for
Major Waters TO testify in his own he
hall, for IL was presumed he was inno-
cent, as he had heretofore stood before
the community as an honorable citizen.
IL had not been shown that Major
Waters had ever appropriated dollars
worth OF goods without the consent of
the relief committee or those In charge.
II had been forgotten by the prosecution
that tho defendant had been Il bcnefac-
tor in the community; that he had
yiveE,,l,i. tiase, his talent and his sciv-
ices without charge aud without pay.
If any ono was at fiiult in the distribu-
tion OF these goods IL was the members
of the relief committee, some of whom
had admitted in their testimony that
thtl nNNtI bttll III illt ItlltI lttit
but once. The report had come TO the
ears Of Mr.. Taylor that Major Waters
had received goods, and found upon in
vestigation that they had been charged
to him. MIR. Hayward was paid en-
ploye of the community and had full
authority, according to the statement OF
MIR. Cannon, chairman of the relief com
mittee. The goods taken TO Major
Waters house were as a mere drop in
the bucket, No more than $50 worth of
goods had been taken to Major Waters
house at any one time. The goods taken
on different days could not be aggre-
gated to make charge of grand larceny,
as they were separate ollenses The en-
ployes of the tent were ut fault in not
charging. the goods to defendant. Mr..
Wilson, Mr.. Burns and MIR. Cannon had
testified that Mr.. Hayward was in
charge and.in possession, and that they
themselves knew nothing about the dis
tribution of the goods. The members of
the committee had been in bed asleep
while Major Waters was on duty at the
head of tile militia guarding the city and
driving out thugs and tinhorns Coun-
sci for prosecution had endeavorcd to
carry this case by storm. Mr.. Seahorn
was perhaps a credible witness, but his
statement that Major Waters had told
him not to let anybody see him deliver
the goods was too incredible for belief
Mr.. seahorn had simply forgotten what
Major Waters did say, and his asscr-
ton that the major had told him
not to let anybody see him was an after
thought. The speaker devoted consider
able time TO reviewing the testimony of
Downs, the scavenger whom he de-
nounced as periurer and thief on
general principles; Because Major
Waters had declined to vote for him for
city scavenger he had decided to cinch
the major. Had he not been "a thief
himself he would at once have reported
any crooked business he might have dis
covered around the relief tent TO the
proper authorities. 1t had been evident
to all present that Downs was lying
every time he opened his mouth. His
countenance alone would convict him in
any court should he be arrested for COM
mitting crime.
Court adjourned to o'clock p. NJ.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court reasscmbled at . +. NJ, and Mr.,
Ridpath concluded his argument. He
was followed by
JAMES b. JONES
for the prosecution. Mr.. Jones dealt
first with the organization and business
of the relief committee. The supplies
sent for the relief of the sufferers had
been stolen. The relief committee, COM
posed of reputable citizens, had under
taken to bring about u thorough inves-
tigation, and had sworn to complaint
cXaminatio: of tho evidence laid before
them. The counsel for defense had as
sumed false position. They were ev-
identity under the impression that the de-
fcndant was being tried for his liberty,
which WAS not the case, This WAS not