The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1890-05-16
THE ARCHER CASE.
The Demurrer to the Indictment Sustained
by Judge Stewart

by Judge Stewart
The indictment against ex- Treasurer Stevenson
Archer for ENLIGHTENMENT in office came up in the
Criminal Court Of Baltimore city, on Tuesday,
The arguments were made by Bernard Carter
and Edgar III. Cans in favor of the demurrer, and
States Attorney Charles q. Kerr In opposition.
The speeches were within narrow range, being
confined to the question whether or not the State
treasurer was included in the meaning of the
statute, which says: ANY person holding office
in the State, who shall fraudulently embezzle or
appropriate to his own use money, funds or evil
dences of debt which he is by law bound to pay
over, account for or deliver to the treasurer of
| this State, or to any person by law authorized to
receive the same, shall be guilty of a misdemea-
nor, and shall upon conviction thereof be sen
fenced to the penitentary for not less than il
months nor more than years." The defence de-
INJURED to the indictment on the ground that the
State treasurer could not be included within the
meaning OF this statute, while the prosecution
contended that he could.
Mr.. Cans in his argument to sustain the de-
murrer, said ::
"There are three elements in this case which
must concur or there is no crime. First, the act
must be done by person holding office; second.
to his own use third. 1t must be an embeZzle-
ment of money or funds which he must pay over
to the treasurer. II you say Mr.. Archer was
if you say it was an embezzlement of money he
was Obliged TO pay over then ne could not be
thorities and made out strong case for his side.
Mr.. Kerr, who followed Mr.. Cans, spoke for
hfteen minutes. saying he would leave the argu-
ment OF the question to Mr.. Whyte. Mr.. Kerr
said:
1--WE do not contend that the failure to pay
over was anything more than an evidence of the
crime committed while Mr.. Archer was an officer
of the State. We do contend that he was bound
to account for the bonds to his successor, and
| the crime was complete but not discovered
until he failed to account to the successor upon
| his formal demand.
Where will it end if this theory of the defence is
eStaDllSlGQI lit will OQlV he necessary for anv
| public officer who is entrusted with funds which
he is bound to pay over, and who desires to re-
| sign his office: He need not even go to Canada.
| 1t cannot be the case as Mr.. Cans has commended
1t is upon this indictment upon this statute that
Mr.. Whyte for the State, spoke for two hours.
He said:
us the treasurer only to receive the money and
not to account for il? Shall 1 take the time of
the court to discuss proposition that a school,
surer who succeeds him. Suppose Douglas H.
Thomas had not informed Baughman that Mr..
Archer was using bonds of the sinking fund, how
could we nave known it until he went out of
office To tell me he was not bound to account
| TO EDWIN b. Brown, to tell me that the law does
and mock them D 0 at 5a9 %
cannot furnish language clearer than the statute.
No one but the treasurer is authorized to receive
money, and the defaulting treasurer must ac-
| count to his successor. Is the treasurer who is
| unable TO account to his successor to go free
| God forbid that such a law should exist,
L
small fry and allow the big fish to go free.
If the treasurer of Maryland is not included In
| English language
Mr.. Carter made the closing argument He
said the question for decision is not what law the
Legislature ought to have passed but what it did
pass. AS soon as Mr.. Archer's term expired
| he was bound to hand over the funds, but he
could not do SO while he was In office. You can't
make it strike Mr.. Archer unless it was within
| the purview OF the law that he should have paid
the money over while he was in office"
| Judge Stewart said there was but one point to
be considered, and he did not see how Mr.
Archer could embezzle money from himself. 81
don't see how can construe the language of the
statute to cover this case" he said. II don't be-
| lieve the treasurer comes within the meaning OF
| the statute. feel it my duty In this case that
must sustain the demurrer"
| The Estate has appealed from the decision, There
remains another Indictment against Mr.. Archer
for embezzement based upon section rs, but
neither this nor the INDIGNANT for larceny will
| be pressed. Pending the decision of the Court Of
Appeals upon the decision on Tuesday the indct
| ment at Annapolis for malfeasance In office will
probably be prosecuted. The decision of the
| Court of Appeals upon the appeal of the State
may be obtained in June, and If the decision ID
overruled the indictment for embezzement viii
be pressed to trial. Conviction for embezzle
ment carries with it penitentiary sentence
while the punishment for mafeasance in office ii
| a Jail or House of Correction sentence.