The Portland daily press., 1890-05-24
THE REED CASE.
county Attorney Robinson Requests
a Verdict OF Not Guilty.


In the Reed embezzlement case, Holman
Waldron. clerk in the Office of the general
ticket agent, testified to the methods of do
Ing business and keeping accounts in the
Brunswick Office. He was formerly clerk
in that office, with Reed under him. and also
had Reed with him at Waterville for time.
He testified that the records in the Bruins
WICK office for December and January were
correct, as were also the monthly reports;
that they show no change or evidence of fall.
slncstion, except in one particular. where it
was evidently clerical error in overlooking
western ticket. He had known Reed IL
years. and always considered him thorough
ly upright and honest.
VIM. W. Colby, clerk in the auditors office
and travelling auditor for the road, testified
that the accounts in the Brunswick Office for
December, 1889. and January, 1890, are
straight and apparently correct. He had
audited the office in April, 1890, and found a
shortage of $685.. Wheeler told him that
the month previous he was short 5000, and
he could not account for it. That was two
Office.
Albert w. Townshend of Brunswick, sta
toner and telegraph operator. testified that
he was at the Brunswick Office one night last
December to take Reeds place. Got the key
from the night Waterman did not know the
combination of the safe. Had known
Reed from child. Never heard anything
against his reputation for honesty and in
tegrity.
Willis Watts, night Waterman at the
Brunswick station and baggage-master for
twenty years, testified to Reeds good repu-
tation.
c. 81. Wagg, messenger boy at the Bruins.
wick office since February, 1889, testified to
the conversation between Reed and Wheeler
when Reed announced the shortage. On
cross-examination he said he had seen
Wheeler pay bills out of the railway money
drawer; had known of Wheeler's two boys
being left in the Office alone. Once heard
Reed tell them to keep away from the money
drawer.
1t is questionable which created the great
er surprise, the announcement by the County
Attorney that his evidence was closed, or the
statement by Mr.. Libby. that If that was so
he should offer no testimony in defence. He
ehCh pAOCCcucu Will his argument 10 tu6 Ju-
ry. He claimed that the government case
was so weak that he did not feel justified in
wasting the time of the court by a lengthy
defence. He severely criticized the action of
Mr.. Wheeler in remitting to the treasurer
each day such small sums as $25, $50 and
$50, when he must have known what the
ticket record kept by Reed showed that his
daily sales of tickets amounted to $40, thus
rendering it possible for this amount of
money to be stolen. he claimed there was
nothing in the government testimony point
ing to Reeds guilt, except the mere fact that
he was a clerk in the Office an had the OPP
portunity.
AT the close of Mr. Libby's argument, Mr..
Robinson said the developments in the case
had been such that he did not feel justified
in asking the jury to return verdict of gull
ty against the respondent, and he therefore
moved that the court instruct the jury to re-
turn a verdict of not guilty.
Judge Bonney so instructed them, saying
there was no testimony that would justify a
verdict of guilty, and if one had Gbeen re-
turned he should have set it aside. The jury
returned a verdict of not guilty, and Reed
received the warm congratulations of his
friends.
Frank w. Robinson, Co. Atty.
G. F. Libby, with c. S. Cook for deft