The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-29
THE JURY DISCHARGED.
1T STOOD SIX TO SIX IN TIE PLEC-
MACHER CASE YESTERDAY.
The Csse Will be Tried Again During the
April Term Of the Hustings Court.
The Accused Out on Bail

anaIlv came M for trial in the Hastings
Court Yesterday. Judge Mullen, OF the
CORPORATION Court of Petersburg, pre-
sided The prosecution was represented
nv commemorative Attorney Harry NJ.
Smith. Jr., and Mr.. James w. GORDON
while the counsel of the defendant were
Judge ID. c. Richardson and Colohel
William +. Wickham. Considerable ume
was taken up in obtaining jury ana
two venires had TO be exhausted before
the necessary number of twelve men,
good and true. could be secured. The
iu,-y was finally agreed upon as follows;
lanes Hayes. J. II. Montague, Jr., NJ
w GAYLE. Joseph Burrell Thomas H.
Rtrger l. J. Mitchell Jr., w. I. Smooi'
Jacob Bachrach, c. w. Allen, Is. Nj. BAT
kins. George T. Deane and william
Trimer.
The accused was charged with grand
larceny, although the commonwealth
Attorney stated that he would endeaVor
TO prove that the accused had oDtaiheu
the sum of 81. 80 from Mr.. William Ebert
under false pretences.
Mr.. William Ebert who was first called
10 the stand, made the following state
ment: 81 have lived in Richmond since
1876. and have known Mr.. Pluemacher
for about ten years and had frienoly re-
lations with him. He was In the real es-
tate business. and towards the end OF
July. in 1893. ne came TO me and asked me
to loan him some money. He said he
needed 81 500 but / told him that | could
not let him have more than $3.50. Mr..
Pluemacher said he needed the money 10
pay off a mortgage. and that he would
give security on his house on peasants
street. | told him that he could get u
when he could give me a clear title to the
property Mr. Pluemacher asked me IL
| had any particular counsel, ana l re-
piled in the negative, whereupon he suS-
gested Mr.. Wendenburg, who was agree
able to me.
SAID The TITLE WAS CLEAR.
AI,,ut two weeks later Mr.. Pluemachcr
brought me an abstract Of the title. and
said that II was clear and that the only
thing charged against the property were
State taxes for three years. | looked at
the abstract, and thought myself that
the title was clear. with the exception OF
the State taxes Nr. Pluemacher then
borrowed the abstract back from me-
SAYING that he wanted TO pay the state
taxes and have not seen It since al
though | tried to get 1t back. | para the
money over to Mr.. Pluemacher on the
day when he brought the abstract, on
August 18th. in my dining-room. corner
of Second and Canal streets. Afterwards
/ went to Mr.. Harvey Wilson, and asked
him to examine the title of the property
again. | did not know Mr.. Pluemacher
financial condition when loaned him the
money, but | would not have given the
loan, except on good security, as | told
him, and | would not have done so had
/ been aware of the fact that at the
tlo
After Mr.. Pluemacher had failed, Mr..
Wilson advised me TO buy i'm the proper
ty In question to save myself, which
did paying 5000 for it. The deed Of trust
which was on the property when ! loan
ed him the money was Tor $2,2O. About
a month later MIR. Pluemacher offered 10
buy the property back or the irstallment
plan for $500, paying me $50 month. |
agreed to it, and a contract to that effect
was signed on September |. 1894. The in
stallments agreed upon have been paid
regularly ever since"
In cross-eXamination witness said that
when the defendant first came to him
he told him that he wanted TO pay off a
mortgage with the money Since the
executing Of the contract the payments
had been promptly paid and If they
were continued witness would not lose
anything. AS additional security the
defendant had given him fifteen shares
of stock of a building company for which
civil suit was now pending.
no PRIynFGFD COMMUNICATION.
When Mr.. Ebert had concluded his tes-
timony Mr. l.. O. Wendenburg was call
ell to the stand and the jury was taken
out OF the courtroom TO enable counsel
TO argue the question as to whether his
testimony should be admitted in regard
to conversation between him and the de-
PENDANT the Iatters counsel claiming that
MIR. Wendenbers was the counsel of the
defendant and their communications
were therefore privileged.
The court finally ruled that the Ian
had been made under false representa-
lions and the testimony in question was
admitted for the purpose of establishing
the criminal intent on the part Of the
defendant.
Upon the return of the jury Mr.. Wen
denburg stated that ne had been en-
gagged by defendant to exanile Jhe ti;lo
of the property. This was early in Au-
gust. 1886 Mr.. Pleum icher who was the
only one whom h. knew in the rams
action, instructed him to eXa nine the
title 10 his home and report anything he
Should iiEd against It, except a loan Of
$2O0O by the Old Dominion Building and
Lean Association. TIE defendant then
asked witness to make him an abstract
of the title and leave of the deed of
trG:t. Witness told him that he could
not 40 that, FOR with his signature such
a document might have oeen misleading
He then agreed to make an abstract up
to the time, when defendant purchased
that property and before he inouuIbcred
reading the certificate could have been
misled a to the facts in the case up TO
that date. The date of the deed Of trust
was October Is, 1891. and it was recorded
on October q, 1891.
Mr.. Harvey Wilson, who testified next
stated that he had been employed by
Mr.. Ebert TO search the title for him OF
defendants property, and that he dscer-
tanned the existence OF the deed of trust
He added that the property was sold I'M
der the deed of trust The prosecution
then rested and a recess was taken I'M
III 40 =. NJ.
TIE AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. Carl Ruehrmond. the architect.
who drew the plan for the house. OF the
defendant and superihteni led the con-
structlon of the same. was callel to the
stand by counsel for the defence. When
he was asked as 10 the fast OF the build
ing the C0mmonwealth-At. J-iieY ard the
Cpurt ruled that evidence TO be inadm.ssi-
bic. Witness was thereupon withdrawn,
al the defence rested their case.
Counsel on both sides submitted their
instructions to the court which caused
a rather lengthy discussion. When the
jury were finally returned 10 the court
room. Judge Mullen addressed them as
follows:
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
T,ie court instructs the jury:
First. That to constitute the offence de-
scribed IN the indictment four things
must concur: