The morning call., 1891-01-09

ant stated that he knew he was doing wrong
In advancing this money to White, but that
White was a friend of his, and for that
reason he could not inform the proprietors.
The money came into The CALL Office and
it vent out l offered in evidence letters
showing that it went to houses of prostitu-
ton and gambling 1t is shown that
$4,000 of The CALLS money was sunk in
the Breeder and Sportsman, paper owned
by Kerr. We ask you to give US verdict
for S25, 600; we ask as a small recompenss
for the damage defendant has wrought
Attorney McEnernev made an exhaus tive
argument for the defense. He claimed that
the fact Of the Indebtedness had not been
proved. The gist Of his argument was that
the deficiency was caused by the money
taken by White before it reached Kerr
The closing argument was made by ex-
Judge Belcher. He argued that Kerr han
been the cashier of THE CALL Company
and that the plea that White took the money
was not sufficient to cancel Kerr's obIpa.
ton as custodian of the fumes.
JUDGE HUNTS CHARGE.
Judge Hunt then delivered his charge to
the jury. The instructions delivered nv re-
quest OF PLAINTIFFS counsel were as follows.
First-If you find from the evidence mar rho
defendant received any money belonging TO tile
San francisco CALL Company on account OF that
company, or otherwise 10 pay IL out as directed
by them, and that said company assigned its de-
mand for such moneys to plaintif then Won will
ceived by defendant 0 ie
Second-If yor find from the evidence thar the
defendant was IN the employment OF the san
francisco CALL Company. aud that his said EN-
ployment REQUIRED him TO hav- the custody and
care OF The moneys of said company received in
The ONCE In which lie was employed then he Ia
liable Tor any moneys so received in said Office
aud not paid over To said company or oIherwiss
paid out as directed by them, unless the sans
were lost or stolen or nsapproprlated nv some
other person without the defendants knowledpe
aud without negligence on his part. 1t was inc
duty OF an empoye To use reasonable az iii anG ND
diligence ha
his employers were safely kept and prouerIv
paid over or used as directed by them
Fouitll-lf you find that the defendant Kerr In
conjunction with any other co-employe of the
pialntlh'S assignors, said employees being epIrusr
ed with or employed 10 have Jointly with said
co ehpioye the custody and care OF said moneys
defendant is liable for any moneys wronefmIIv
taken or lnisappropriated by such person with
defendants consent, or which the defendant Inv
ms negligence enabled him TO take or misapnro-
pirate.
For the defendant the charge concluded as
follows: III you are unable to determine
from tile evidence how much money if any
was had or received by the defendant to
the use of plaintiffs assignors, You must
ind for the defendant"
At 80 O'Clock the jury retired, but re-
turned to the courtroom few minutes
later.
did Mr.. Pickering testify that White
was not business manager Y' asked one of
the Jurors.
That portion of Mr.. Pickering's testi-
mony which stated that White was business
manager only in qualified sense was read.
The jury was permitted to remain in
the courtroom and fire built for their
comfort. At o o'clock Judge Hunt was
sent for and at the request of the Jurors he
again read the charge. Ten minutes later
verdict 10 favor OF the defendant was
handed to the Court by Foreman Samuel
Shaen. The jurors being polIed ten said
they were in favor of the verdict. Jurors
James Higgins and o. Y. Smith said thsy
were not.
Judge Hunt ordered a Judgment to be
entered in favor of the defendant and the
court adjourned.