Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1892-05-19
him and was in an envelope awaiting

him.
Hanu's salary account (of $5 pei
week. began on January 1ss, 1899. He
was paid every two weeks when he
called at the Office in Philadelphia for
1t. He was paid January 10. $40:
January 80, $40; February 10, $40; and
there was three weeks salary or $15
due him which. with the $3.50 due In
commissions she had with her to pay
him, as 1t had been appropriated for
him at the regular times of paying the
salaries Of the employees.
Frank l.. HERON was called and
testified that he inspected the accounts
OF Ham g. Go. with Kelly & Co.
The book accounts of customers
were exhibited. The book of Asa
Mead showed that Hann s. Co, had
collected ON this account $18, and had
remitted to the company SIS, the other
IS had not been received by the com.
pany. The account of Nora L. Loder
showed that 50 had been collected and
only IS had been paid to to the com.
pany, leaving "a short. Grace GouId's
account showed q shortage OF g in re-
mittance on $18.20, the book having
been settled In full VIM. B. MAYORS
account Of $500. shows than Ham y
Co., are short In remittance $3.50.
A number of other pass books were
produced showing deficits in remittan.
ces of 81, 81, 81, a, $3, $s and $1.40
respectively, and which amounts were
charged in the indictment.
With the presentation Of this evi-
dence and the testimony of the own
ers of the books the case rested.
The :case of Ed. 8. Ham, Indicted
for larceny as bailee was concluded
Friday afternoon, the Jury bring
ing In verdict Of guilty just as court
adjourned. the defence being ably
conducted by Mr.. Trenchard.
The defense was opened by Mr..
Trenchard before court adjourned at
noon, who said he intended to show
that Ham & Co. began to work for
Kelly & Co in November and not In
December, and that Ham s. Cos, was
Ed. 8. Ham and Lemuel P. johnson,
and not,a had been insisted on by the
State, Edmund 8. Ham alone.
In his opening, Mr.. Trenchard re-
vealed the fact that Kelly g. Co.'S men
came down here and got Ham para
Used drunk and then gathered up
his books. papers and accounts and
carried them off to Philadelphia, after
which it was utterly impossible for
him to make a settlement that would
be just to himself, with Kelly s. Co.
He said that Hapn claimed salary
due him, which had not been paid, and
that Ham would go on the stand and
swear that Kelly & Co. had only paid
him $40, on account of salary.
Edmund 8. Ham was placed on the
stand and swore that the firm of Ham
& Co was composed of himself and
Lemuel P. johnson.
The effort of this movement was to
show Johnson's liability and, evidently
that Ham cannot be convicted alone.
Prosecutor Logue objected to this
mode of evidence, and the objection
was sustained.
The court stated that Mr.. Johnson's
connection made no difference to the
case. Mr.. Ham was the man indicted.
and he was the man on trial. and 1t did
not matter in his case what number of
partners he might have had. 1t does
not prevent Mr.. johnson from being
indicted some other time.
The court told Mr.. Trenchard he
might take an exception.
Ham then went on to explain the
business in which he had been engaged
for Kelly & Co. and In a rather ram
bling way tried to show his inability,
by the loss of his book and papers, to
effect a settlement with Kelly s. Co.
He claimed the house shipped back to
Philadelphia the goods they couldn't
find.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
The evidence of Ham himself, con.
cluded just as court adjourned in the
morning, ending the case on both
sides, and the summing up was begun
by Hon. T. w. Trenchard when court
convened in the afternoon.
Mr.. Trenchard made an exhaustive
and impassioned address, and claimed
that the Jury should bring in a verdict
Of acquittal as he declared the State
had not clearly made out case.
Prosecutor Logue followed with a
clear, incisive presentation of the facts
claimed to have been established.
Judge Hoagland charged the Jury
in a manner which indicated the strong
points of the States case and the weak
points of the defense. The charge was
delivered with Judge Hoagland's usual
carefulness of review, charging that
the Jury must feel sure beyond a