The San Francisco call., 1895-12-13

ted circumstances that have stated and read in
the light OF those circumstances sufficient, if
explained to base charge and warrant verdict
OF EN- mbezzement against this man cannot be dis
puted.
BUT ONE EXPLANATION.
What is Potter's explanation? He gives but
one. Your Honor will recall that he was first
give testimony in this case, and at that time the
explanation of his failure to pay this money over
10 Its owners was that he had loaned the bulk of
lt-SSOOO-to man whose name he would not
then reveal, and had taken his note, which note
had never been paid. He declined 10 state the
nature OF the transaction because 1t was business
transaction.
He said that he had a voucher for this amount,
and, when asked what it was, declined to state, on
the ground that, TO his own language, 'being
connected with the business, he is not at liberty to
do So" He states ait business transaction
note. 'Q.-Whose note? Al refuse to state.''
He goes on to say: II reported that fact TO the
Office after the money was returned. told them
had loaned the money, and as soon as got it 1
would return it. l told him (Rodolph. The book
Keeper that had loaned the m money, but did not
Asked what has become of that note he says:
"The note? have got it,
"Q.-YOu still have it? Ayes sir.
"Q.-Where is it? AIT my house"
Is that story true? Is that an explanation of
the failure 10 turn over this $4,000 to its true
owner?
1 shall endeavor to show toyyour Honor, and
feel confident will be able to prove that there is
not one particle of truth in that explanation.
As have already stated, the amount collected
was some $4,000. 1t was not collected in one sum
the first, on october 25, 1882, was $S44 20; the
second, on November II. 1882. $25l2 81.
1t will be noticed, OF course, that neither of these
sums makes up by itself the full sum of $4,000,
which he says he loaned to this unknown man.
He could not have made that $4,000 loan with the
first collection, because il amounted to only $500.
That was received, as have stated, on the 25th of
October. He must have carried it over from the
25th of October TO the 18th of November, and
added it to the S250o which he then collected in
order TO get $4,000 TO loan to this unknown
stranger There is no pretense that he loaned that
o. IvQp 10 n anH 10 n
November What reason, then, was there for not
Immediately turning over that money in the or
dinary and honest course of business to its true
owners? Where did Potter keep that $500 for this
period OF four weeks? 1t coin, not check.
He did not loan it, The explanation OF a loan will
not fit that case.
DEAD MEN CANNOT SPEAK.
His story about the note, if your Honor please.
is inherently untrue. We have mysterious note,
given 10 man who must remain unnamed because
the transaction is not such will bear the light Of
day. This is given when Jesse Potter goes the
stand the first time His mind upon this sub
Ject, so far as the examination was concerned, was
virgin of any impression. He could not tell, he
did not know that would question him, or that
we knew anything about that transaction. Hence,
at that time the name of the payee OF the note is
refused although ne tells us the note is in his
possession at that time; IL is at his house, he can
produce it. He thinks he is safe against detection
because the rampant which he has thrown before
hiEI, that this was business transaction, will be
sufficient protection against further Questionings.
He is subsequently undeceived in that PROPOSE
ton, because, before he leaves the stand. we de-
mand, OF right the production of that note. The
counsel who represent him here were. of course,
too well versed N law TO suppose for a moment
that the request could be refused. The rampant
which h e had built up OF declining to produce II,
and of eclining soon to give us the name of the
payee, vnnisheS. Upon the reassemblng of the
court what happens? We are then told that the
name of the payee is Mr.. Reynolds. In selecting
from the whole mass OF people VINO might nave
been its payee Mr.. Potter is careful to name man
who has been in his grave for three or four years.
and who, therefore, could, by no possibility con-
tradict him.
And what of the note which he had at his house
the dav before? We are informed that he has
hunte for it in his box in the safe OF Miller & Lux
and il is not there. TIE note cannot be produced
Why did he so that evening to the safe of Miller
IL Lux to look for that note when the echo OF his
testimony that the note was at his house had not
died within these wallso He had seen the note, he
tells us aeyear and half before. He had kept the
precious document from 1882 until 1898, a period
of eleven and a half years, and, 10, at the very
moment of his utmost need it has vanished-ith had
percolated through the iron walls OF the safe OF
Miller Il Lux. 1t cannot be produced.
His first version, if your Honor please, OF this
matter, on the 2lst OF october, is that he had
loaned the money to this mysterious man, and that
he had told Rodolph, the bookkeeper: LAS soon
1 get this money back from this man will turn it
in There can be no question that at that time
the exculpation of Potter was placed upon the the
ory OF a loan for which note, payable at future
time had been taken because, your Honor will re-
member, he swore that he had tried repeatedly to
collect that note, but had been unable, and he had
kept the note in his possession from 1882 until a
year and half ago-nearly twelve years-as a
valuable piece OF paper.
His second version OF the transaction involves
upon the theory OF payment TO Reynolds of this
sum of money, TO be spent by Reynolds for the
benefit of the firm, to vulgar phrase, ''wher-
ever it would do the most gOod''
Then, it not loan. Then, it was not ex-
pected that it was to be paid back. Then, the
story OF an efort to collect 1t back is
not true. 1t is not true, either, that he
ever told Rudolph that he had loaned this man, or
any man, this money. Nor is il true that he told
Nickel that he had loaned this man any money.
And this for two obvious reasons: Rodolph is his
own personal and intimate friend. He is the only
capacity amount TO nothing in this caSe-he is the
only witness, say, that Potter has summoned
in his behalf.
AS SILENT AS THE GRAVE.
The tie between them is so intimate that
Rodolph is willing TO make himself petitioner in
a proceeding to remove the executor of Potter's
mothers will upon the mere casual suggestion of
Potter. Rodolph is sworn Does he say that Pot
he ever told him that he had taken a note from
Reynolds or from any other man? Does he say
that he told him that, when he collected the
money back, he would pay it to him? Does he
say that he the note? Does j. Leroy
Nickel the duplicate and representative of Henry
to the end of this triai-does j. Leroy Nickel go
on the stand and say that Potter ever told him
it was loan; that he ever saw this
note; that when he charged Jesse Potter with
having enbezzled this money, Potter exculpated
himself upon the ground that he had given the
money to man TO be spent for the benefit OF the
firm? No. Nickel Is as silent as the grave. and
Ro1olph does not dare swear that Potter ever
told him anything of the kind
Then remember, if your Honor please, that this
very same Mr.. Nickel and Mr. Miller, in the be-
ginning of 1891. confronted Jesse Potter with this
defalcation OF $4,000, charged him with it, and de-
manded restitution. Potter at that time had Rey-
nolds' note if he had it ALL for he he had it
as late as 1898. Did he exhibit that note to his
employer Miller his representative Nickel or
Rodolph the bookkeeper? Did he say This is
my explanation; ] did not steal the money. 1
may have been iniudicious in giving il to Reynolds
but did it in your interest. i may have been
wrong but here is the voucher, here is the paper
which exonerates me, at least, of being thief
Nol Confronted with his defalcaton, he admits
ii. Having in his hands, he says, the means OF
refutIng the charge. he does not produce them
Yet, these were not strangers or enemies. Henry
Miller his relative by marriage twice over, his
friend, his preceptor, his mentor. If when Henry
Miller charged this man, for whom he says he
tertained fatherly love and socitude with the
damning evidence of the books, Jesse had sad
why, there IS no wrong in this; here is the evil
dence of my innocence" would he not have gladly
accepted IL? Jesse never produced ii. Miller
it, never heard of it, He Sterny de-
manded from the unfaithful employe the return of
the full amount with interest from the date of the
collection.
Mr.. Potter says further, that at the time that
these tran sacions took place he reported them to
use his language '.Rodoph marked 1t down
as credit for them (the Oriental and Occidental
Steamship Company and deDted me with it in a
memorandum which he put in an envelope"
False, If your honor please, in both propositions;
false, because Rodolph, called upon the stand, is
not questioned as TO that memorandum; false, be-
if there TO be credit given by the book
keeper to the Occidental and Oriental Steamship
Company, who had paid their money in satisfac-
fnr ~ hnl dol q tafn 20 nOt,y1 ~