The morning call., 1893-06-15

discovered by the Bank Commissioners.
perpetrated a series of false entries on the
books
Now. why does he ask the State to fur
nlsh Information of what he knows nlnl-
self? Who can tell better than Flood HIM
self when he made false papers and when
he directed the bookkeeperS TO make false
entries.
''He took the money of one man, when it
came into the bank and was placed IN his
hands as cashier, and Instead OF credlllng
II to the account of the man who deposited
II, ne credited 1t to n account tnat ne hau
already previously plunderedf for the bene-
ut of the necessities of a still more ancient
account.
Assuming that all Mr.. Foote says is
true, and it should appear Flood had made
faise entries in the books, that doesn |
answer the question here, and II doesn't
amount to defense.
ut Is a wholly unheard-of proposition
that the State should be required in ad
vance to furnish TO the defendant evidence
OF facts thatare within his own knowledge,
which is better thanthe knowledge of any
body else"
Mr.. Foote talked to his motion again.
"The crime of embezzlement." he said,
us merely a statutory offense. There is no
proof in my judgment that would warrant
counsel in den0unclng this man as guilty
of that Offense
There is no evidence. as Mr.. Barnes
said, that Flood robbed one account to
make good another. There is no such evil
dence and will be no such evidence"
Il merely stated nv understanding OF
1t, IN Interrupted General Barnes.
1t makes no difference" said Mr.. Foote.
suppose at the time of the private bank
ing-hOuse of (which this defendant was
partner he paid Gyerdrafts on accounts of
some of his Observation-Disclosures them 20
overdraw--and not wishing to let his part
ners know IT, hoping against hope TO get
this money back and have his own losses
made good as well as the losses of his part
neTs-Suppose this were the case?
we claim that the books OF the bank
will show that, Notwithstanding these over
drafts, which at one time amounted to
SlS0,000, this man had for years been de-
prlvlng himself and his family of the
neceSsaries of life in order to make good
the losses which the bank had sustained
not by his guilty acts, but by the faithleSs-
ness and duplicity of his friends.
NOW we maintain this man is entitled
TO the same rights as any other man on
trial, and that the whole province of the
prosecution, in any case, is to produce all
Of the evidence obtainable in order that
the jury may decide as TO his guilt or in
nOcenee. Il is the States duty to produce
not only such portions of the evidence as
goes to inculpate the accused, but TO show
all the facts to the jury, whether they
make for the innocence or guilt Of the de-
fendant"
Very briefly. after all this talk, the
court said ne cid rot think the evidence re-
Quired was of the kind th9t the State
should he made TO produce. He therefore
denied Mr.. Foote'S motion.
In the afternoon came the arguments.
First Assis tant District Attorney Hinkle
briefly outlined the case for the State and
went over the evidence adduced. He was
followed by Mr.. FoOte for the accused.
friend General Barnes was exceed
lngly anxious to crosS-eXamine AIR. Flood"
SAID Attorney Foote, 'but | did not think
II necessary 10 put him on the stand. The
Court will instruct you that you have no
right TO draw conclusions inimical to Mr.
Flood because he did not choose to testify
in his own behalf.
You can well understand that in a
banking institution there are occasions
when a man may make a mistake, but [
say 10 you and l ask you to say by your
verdict that mistake is no crime.
Prior TO the Incorporation of the pres
ent DonohOe- Kelly Bank, and as far back
as 1876, Mr.. Flood was a partner in the
banking institution by that name, and
being partner he could not embeZzle his
own funds.
ut is in testimony now before you that
the bank directors have made investiga-
tons which would show that state of
affairs existed that if made public would
tend toward showing the innocence of