The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-22
SLACK BOOKKEEPING.
The Cash Drawer Was Open TO Nearly
Everyone.
A Young Man Charged With Embez-
zlement-Other Cases In Court.

This morning the trial of Louis p. Le Jeune
| indicted for the embezzlement OF 5000 from
the firm Of Waldron, Wightman g. Co. during
| his employment by that concern as book
keeper, was begun The indictment alleges
| that the crime charged was committed within
| six months OF the first day OF November, ls93
Attorney General Dubois, in his opening
| address To the Jury, stated that he would
prove that lie Jeune had two methods Of TAX
| ing the money he Is alleged 20 have en-.
| bezzled. One means taken by him was to re-
| ceive money from parties who owed the firm
that employed him, giving a receipt for the
| amount so paid and enter the sum in the
ledger. but make entry of the payment in
the cash book. The second manner of getting
money was To receipt bill in full and enter
the amount less go OF $40 on the ledger.
w. Is. Wightman, the first witness called in
behalf Of the State, testified that Le Jeune
was in the employ of his firm until May 81
1894. That the duties Of the defendant were
To take charge of the ledger, at times receive
payments on bills, and TO send out monthly
statements. That on tho 10th of September,
1894, he first discovered there was anything
wrong in the accounts of lie Jeune. He. at
that time. found out that the latter had made
false entries
The Attorney General then asked what was
the total amount Of the same2 Before the
question could be answered, Attorney Walter
+. Angel, who is defending lie Jeune. objected
to the question. and as tho witness could not
identify the entries on the books, tho ques-
tion was not pressed. lie Jeune. the witness
stated, did not leave the firm of his own ac-
count.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted
that he had written letter very warmly re-
commencing lie Jeune as a first-c class account
ant, and a gentleman in every way. he also
stated that he knew lie Jeune went TO Chicago
and that he got telegram from him Offering
to come to Providence whenever wanted. and
that the defendant did come here at his re-
quest. In answer to other questions by Mr..
Angel, the witness admitted that the books
of the firm were, previous to Le Jeune's en-
ployment, in bad condition, and that several
parties had access to tho money drawer in the
Office, and that other parties than Le Jeune
receipted bills
William f. Frazer testified to several en-
tries on the books Of the concern.
MIR. Angel objected to evidence to more
than one act of alleged embezzlement, under
the one count in the indictment. and cited a
number of cases in support of his contention.
The Attorney General argued that any act
during the six months referred to in the in
dictment could be- proved under our statute.
Judge Wilbur decided that as the State could
not have tho benefit of tho exception, he
would at this timo overrule the point made by
Mr.. Angel. The latter took an exception,
and the examination of Mr. Frazer was re-
sumed.
Before Judge Rogers. the suit OF DIR. W. II.
Greene. against Frederick J. Aldrich, for the
recovery Of $3.50 for professional services
rendered TO the latter and his family, from
the middle of April, 1890, TO May 10, 1892.
The services. ii is claimed, were rendered in
this city, Cottage City, Omaha, Neb, and
places between the last city and Providence.
Tho defendant claims that he has already paid
the plaintiff all that he should be required to
in consideration of service rendered.
LARGE VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.
The jury in the case of William L. Snyder
against the New York, New Haven g. Hart
ford, found verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
and he was given $1,000 for damages. The
large size of the verdict caused general sur
prise among people present in court when it
was given late yesterday afternoon.
The jury in the case of Franklin +. Vinton
against william II. Davis, this noon brought
In a verdict in favor Of the plaintiff for 500.
Several hours today were devoted by Judges
stiness, Tillipghast, and Douglass in the hear
ing of testimony in two cases brought by l..
ID. Newell q Co. of this city against Thomas
O'Gorman. The suit is brought to restrain
alleged violations Of lease on the part of the
defendants The position of various counters
in different departments OF the store used by
the plaintiff and defendant in common on
Westminster street, was testified to by wit
nesses and there was considerable conflict in
the testimony as to the extent and character
of certain changes in the counters for the sale
of goods since the lease went into effect.
]. NJ. Ripley and j. ID. Thurston were coun.
sci for the plaintiff, and Bassett 81 Mitchell
for the defendant.