St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-08-17
HELD TO THE GRAND JUYY.
Three Cases in all Now Against
Enoch Ray.

Three Cases in all Now Against
Enoch Ray.
Enoch Ray is now free man, tempo
rarily at least. 1t is no doubt a good
thing for him, so far as his health is
concerned, for he is not the man he was
a little over a week ago when he re-
turned from Montreal. Since his hear
ing began he has grown perceptlbly
paler each day, and yesterday when he
appeared III court to listen to Judge
Emery's finding in his case the change
in his appearance from what it was at
the beginning of the week was marked.
But now he has until his case is consid-
cred by the grand jury in September to
recuperate. He is bound over to the
grand Jury and has two other COM
plants against him, but he has fur
nished the requisite bonds, $1,000 in
each case, and can do as he listeth in
stead Of suffering the enforced COM
panionship ofothe Barrett boys.
Rather a larger concourse than usual
was assembled in the court room when
Judge Emery asked if Enoch Ray was
present. Ray sat in the midst of sew
eral OF his late brother officers who had
come in out of curiosity, and his fea-
lures wore a laggard expression as the
Judge read his decision. His eyes were
sunken. his face ashy pale and drawn.
The judges finding began thus:
"Defendant is charged with the crime
of embezzlement in the character Of
bailee of money committed to his
charge. That he received the sum al
legged at the time and place charged,
ard that after due demand he has
failed to return it or to pay it over to
the person entitled to it, is conceded.
Two questions are presented. First:
Is defendant cnargeable with having
the money in his possession as bailee?
and second: If SO, did he fraudentlY
embezzle and convert it to his own
use? II the delivery of this
money was not a bailment he
caunOt be held under this charge.
1t appears substantially from the evil
dence that the money was delivered to
him to be held until further sum of
$500 should be likewise paid him by the
same person, and thereupon the entire
sum was to be paid over to the city
treasurer to procure a license for the
sale of LIQUOR for the Brenheimer Wine
company. This contract is the one I'M
piled by law from the language and acts
of the parties. No authority existed
whereby the defendant could receive 1t
in his official capacity. As he could not
have received it for or on behalt OF The
city treasurer of the city, it must DC
held to have been received in his indi-
vidual capacity only. This. L think.
constitutes defendant a bailee within
the meaning of the law, the ballment
being a mandate or commission, and II
he thereafter fraudulently converted it
to his own use, with intent to deprive
the true owner of the same, he was
guilty of ENLIGHTENMENT. (Penal Code,
Sec. 415). The defendant having failed
and refused to pay it over to the proper
persons on demand is charged with
properly accounting for 1t, and his fail
ure to do so is evidence of embezzle
ment.
"The only testimony as to where the
identical money was placed is that o.
the defendant himself. 1t IS assumed
by his counsel as a fact that 1t was
pIaced in a certain tin box and deposited
In the city treasurer's office at some
time between the 14th and ga OF July
but this fact is established only by IN.
statement of the defendant hlmSelI
No other eye than his saw II place.
there. No other saw it In that depos
ftory, SO far as the evidence shows, ant
no circumstance whatever is adduced II
confederation of this statement.
1.-The defendant claims that he ma
never removed it from that place, ant
simply shows that two others have hat
opportunity to take it therefrom. Upol
INSPECTION, it is not found there, and al
those who have had access to 1t hatl.
deny the imputation thus cast upol
them"
The Judge then discussed all the sus