The morning call., 1891-12-05

largest profits of month amounted to S512
| and the greatest loss was S2l50; yet this de-
| PENDANT says he held the books open to pre-
vent the showing of a loss. During all this
| time the defendant was taking out money
| when he needed it. Did he hold the books
| open to deceive the Simonton heirs or TO
cover up his own speculatiOns? That IS Tor
| the Jury TO decide. This stolen money he
! lost on horse-races, in magic lotion and IN
| Inyo lands was from the Office OF The
| Morning Call Company. The money was
| not borrowed IL was not an overdratt, but
the result of a willful pecnlation. ii it was
an overdraft why should he not keep rec
ord TO show how much lie owed t lie office
NOT A SINGLE ENTRY.
He never madea single entry all that time
| to show how much he had taken. Even
! when lie won money in the poOl-rooms he
did not have the grace 10 put it back in the
| safe, but held it in his pocket 10 speculate
with the next day. Was not that deliber-
ate attempt to steal the money? He cOolly
says he WAS only careless in his book-keep-
! ingi He had supervision Of any clerk In the
Office, and had entire supervision and con-
troll OF the cash.
Did you ever depo lit money in bank or
! any other institution continued Mr. Hinkle
to the jury, when the receiving teller did
not check the money from the slip and count
| each kind of money and checks deposited?
! No, don't think you ever did. White says
| he dumped The CALL ; money into the
! safe without counting il. This was very
received over S10S3 in a single day. As
| shown III the books, during two years and
| eight months, from January ,, 1886, tn Sep
| TENDER ., 1888, he overdrew S6oO0 above
| his salary vi 500 week. White lost largely
| on hOrse-races, and from September %,
| 1SSS, TO June s, 1889, no one knows who took
| the money from the safe. MeSSrs. Picker
ing and Fitch never knew he was taking
money or overdrawing White never asked
permission to oyerdraw. but Just helped
! IN a m hs
| magic Lotion and lnyo lands. HE CALL
| had no share IN the game at all. Is not that
| criminal? Docs not that show the object
| with which the defendant took the money?
| He says the affairs OF the office were loosely
| conducted. Loosely conducted by whom?
| BY John White.
No enc knows how much he took, be-
! cause lie deliberately put the matter out OF
| his hands or knowledge SO lie could not
keep track of his stealings. How do you
! knew that one else took tile money! He
| says himself he was the sole custodian and
deliberately used the money and funds of
the Office without making an entry of any
kind 10 show how much he took. The only
credit he gave himself was $500 he turned
| IN from tile Breeder and Sportsman.
wILLFUL AND DELIBERATE.
| at is williul, deliberate ENLIGHTENMENT.
| The four things necessary to prove the charge
! are: First, he was in the service of THE
| GAIL, second, that the money came into his
/
! came into his hands and were under his sole
care and control; fourth. that he appro-
! prlated the money to his own use. The
! proof OF this is absolute. The proof that he
! intended TO steal the money is just as abso-
! lutte. Every statement lie has made is an
| undeniabe confession of guilt.
Every day THE CALL gave him employ
| ment, was he not stealing this money,
covering up his steps and leaving the
! whole matter in confusion so that the
stv la
| mess. The fact that he paid back some
| 5.0O0 or $4,000 leaves him still S14,00
or $1,000 behind the amount he has not yet
restored. Even if lie had restored every
| Sin9le dollar he would still lie guilty of en-
! bezzemeht and, gentlemen of the jury, il is
your sworn duty TO convict him in accord
! anCc with your oath. We do not care 10
! combat the evidence that he paid back
| some SIS, GO. That is for the court to de-
| term!ue in mitigation OF the puniShme nt.
! he Is guilty of felony mbeZziement-the
/ sum being larger than $50. You are not
permitted to consider at all the question Of
! mitigation"
| Court, Jurors and spectators looked in
| quiringiy at Attorney Darwin, who sat be-
| side BIS client, bu>ily making notes Nj.
! Darwin arose, cleared his throat, adjusted
| his spectacleS and faced the jury. Every
| body expected him to make a reply to the
| peoples argument. They were disap-
! pointed, for he merely said quietly that lie
! had nothing TO say, and there was nothing
/ that had been sad by the Assistant Dis
| trct Attorney that required II reply.
Judge Trout said that the instructions
! handed INN by defendants counsel were so
! Foium!nous that IT would require some time
| to peruse them. So an adjournment Was
taken until o'clock in the afternoon.
| When court recCGvened Judge Trout
read his iustruclioHs-ihe charge TO the
| jury-.hieh the accommodating stenog-
! rapher, Harvey w. Waiter, recorded as
| follows:
Charge 30 the Jury.
The Couit-IEe defendant. through his coun-
! gel. has presented TO he Court certain InstIuc-
/ tons. which will now read 10 you as being Tie
! law concerning tue subjects 10 which they re-
! late.
| The embezzl-ment of check would not be
sufiicien ground for conviction on this Inform
! ailon because u cheek on a bank, no matter how
valuable, Is not lawful money Of the niled
| States as charged.
You can only convict for a specific sum which
! defendant shall have been proved 10 have sue
| officially eHb-ZZed and which must be the
speehc sum stated In this indictment OF d specific
| part OF II.
| You cannot convict for mere unpaid balance
no matter how exactly such unpaid balance may
| have been defined by The evidence.
| i instruct you that this defendant cannot be
! convicted OF The crime charged IN tile ndIctment
| upon mere proof OF bis declarations or cpDIes-
| slons alone There must be some proof IN addi-
| ton that there was In tact lawful money OF tue
| United States frauduleptiy taken.
INST net you that each juror is 10 act upon his
| own individual judgment upon the facts OF he
| case and If lie entert in a reasonable doubt OF
! The Defendants guilt he is not required sur
| render his own conviction aud rriIder d verdict
| OF guilty merely because The Diner Jurors euteT-
tain no such doubt.
You Cannot convict on mere unpaid balance
| OF money r. naming on defendants hands, no
| matter now exactly such unpaid balance may
| have been defined By tie evidence.
Defendant Is charged wi h apprOpriatinC law.
| inl money OF the United States. Lawful money
OF lhe I niied States consists OF gold and silver
coin, aud The United States Treasury notes. and
| Tue fractional currency. and the prosecution
| must prove 10 your entire satisfaction aud be.
| yond a reasonable duubt-that is. they must
entirely satisfy your nlinds-tiat tie money ken
| by defendant, If any was taken was of one or
more OF these kinds Of money; and il from The
! evidence you are not so entirely satisfied, iR-
| stfuct you that you must aequit tile defendant.
| An entry OF a eept OF money is not real
| receipt oil such money nor IS an entry of pay
| lnent real pawn MS each may tend 10 prove
| the fact so stated. but III criminal charge does
| not by Itself constitute that fact
| In regard 20 The Two written statements signed
| Dy Tue defendant and offered In evidence by the
| people and admitted in evidence, / will instruct
| you that you must wholly disregard the same so
lar as they, or any portion OF either, states any
| fact which took place before the 18TH day OF
| September, A. ID. 1887.
The indictment herein was found on Sepfsm.
| Der Ia, 1897, and in your determination Of de-
feaGah S CUNT you must wholly ignore any act
OF DEF ndant which was of date more than
! three years prior TO September II, 1890.
a reception OF money for the master and also
| maappropration OF the money received are
ooih necessary to constitute an embe zzlemrnt,
| ana DOH the reception and the maapproI ria
ton must be within the limits OF the three years.
NO act OF defendant, either Of reception or of
| APPROXIMATION OF money, can be considered by
| you unless II was within three years next pre-
cedlng The 17th Jay Of September, 1890.
III Kerr while cashier appropriated money to
MS own use and gave same or part same TO de-
iendant that was not an embezziemeHt by de-
| fendaDt but by Kerr.
If Kerr embeZZed and gave OF the embs zzled
money TO White, such reception by White could
| not DO an enlightenment unless he had abetted
| Kerr in the taking
| White would not be guilty of Kerr's ennhezzle.
| ment BY tile mere fact that he knew OF H.
| Ii Nbiie TOOK money from the safe OF the Call
company with the Intent illegally to apply /: to
his own use while heIr TIE cashier and Gus
todlln oil IL, then such taking was not embezzIe-
! ment but larceny and VIII not sustain a yefdlct
on this Indictment.
A mere shortage in accounts does not imply an
ENHANCEMENT.
| III Kerr, while he was cashier, suffered White
| to oYeIdraw his salary such oyerdra WING was
| not an ENLIGHTENMENT in w hlIe.
| III the salary OF White, as overdrawn while
| of 1, OoVN