The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1890-12-05
STATE Rx.TREASURER HEMINGWAY.
The Supreme Court Of this State Confirms
the Verdict Of the Lover Court.


JACKSON, Dec. 1.-The Supreme
Court to-day confirmed the deci
Slon Of the lower court in the case
of ex.State Treasurer w. L. Hem
ingway VS.. The State, convicted in
the FIRST District Court OF Kinds
county Of Pn.beZzlement.
The opinion of the court was de-
livered by Chief Justice Wood,
and was very lengthy, containing
elaborate and learned arguments
on all the grounds OF error Ohirty-
Fix in NUMBER that we're assigned
and relied on for reversal. An
hour was occupied in its reading
One of the salient points in the
decision is as follows: ''The appli-
cation for continuance at The trial
court relied on for error being adj
dressed 10 The sound discretion
of the court will not be disturbed
by The appellate tribunal unless
for paloabIe abuse of that discre.
lion winch we are not prepared to
say existed in denying The same
He then reviewed the several
counts in the Indictment and fail
ed 10 sustain The assignment of er.
rOrS therein.
The instruction of the Judge of
the lower court to the jury was re-
viewed at length, and the court
found no reason for refusal in any
of hose admitted or rejected. Seri-
Gus stress having been laid on an
instruction in the cour, below, stat
ing in effect that "A failure to turn
over money in his hands by deien.
dant, or 10 give reasonable account
Of same, he said was proof OF EN-
bezzIement, and it was not neceS-
sary to show a ieloniouS appropria-
lion. The court held said Insiruc-
ton proper, thereby uphOIding the
doctrine Of the Supreme Court of
Tennessee announced in the cases
of Leonard We. the State and Cam
erOn VS.. the State.
The court said the district attor.
ney in his speech before the jar,
said some things that should not
have been said, and other things
hat would have been better left
lnsaId, but il was not sufficient in
view Of the evidence OF guilt III
he case TOR a reversal.
The opinion concludes as follows:
LAS the only remaining conten-
ion that the evidence was moi Suf f.,
TO support the verdict, it is
plain and imperative duty to ,
the shortage in the defendants !
.ccOuntlng With The State as its |
Treasurer is put beyond the reach
# cavil by the evidence in the
ecord before us. The official rec. {
rds required by law to be kept by I
he Treasurer bear silent witness :
gainSt the defendant, and This 81
witness is powerfully support $
d by a vast mass of other and in /
e~pendent and convincing evi- g
ence pointing in the same direc. +
on. Ii This deficiency of more n
han 100000 has arisen because I
I errors in The defendants receipt. "
x to his predecessor in Office four
years ago, how is it possible Il
conceive the failure 10 discover o
ich errors prior to 1856, when, On a
basis of that settlement with 81
.Olland, the former Treasurer, The a
aiendant was only charpeable ~
18th il balance OF about $1,000? al
does not human credul,ty OF
agger when asked 10 believe that u
Ie defendant was, in 1856, actual n,
carrying The State as his debtor OF
r more than 100000, and vel Ill
is must be conceded il il was st
ue that tins balance of $4,000, " ~
to have been embezzled, b,
as credited by error OF like sh
Mount against the defendant SD
owing oul OF The settlement with
olland2
IF this great balance is The
oduci of errors in book. keeping
nee 1886, when the accounting
scloSed only $1,000 in The defen-
nt's hands, is it not equally in.
that all the official and
official, public and private ex.
llnatlOns of the records in the nj
e%asurer's office have slgnally III.
led 10 discover that tremendous be
# Mi
the defendant has not ac- 80
united for or explained his fail TO-
2 10 produce or pay over the
Eat balance shown TO have been pr,
his hands or to have been con. Gu,
rted or made way with BY him, M
incontrOYerlibly certain, and all of
: EVIDENCE in The case leaves us
solid ground upon which TO
Ich any other conclusion than
It arrived at by the jury Oh the
al belO w."