The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-10-09
THERE MUST BE FURTHER INVEsTI-
CATION.

We reprint the following letter wnich
appeared in Sundays Times
To the Editor of The Times:
Sir.-The Times appears to search out
right. without fear OF favor, and Justice
asks why Cardwell is in the peni.eh''a.tls
and Nelson on the street? Was not ths
money Of tho bank fraudulently procured
by a false token made by Nelson wmeh
he well knew he did not nave dolldI
n the bank, and was already oVercneck-
ed? Does the connivance OF CariWeI re,
lease the original fraudulent intent ana
criminal act of making ana presenting
false token? If grand jury can sc.
IL, will not an information lie prepared
hy the Commonwealth Attorney! Let
us have justice. w.
Our correspondents surprise at the
course this case has taken is very natu-
raj. and it is shared by ninety-nine hun
dredths of our population
We know nothing whatever of the facts
of this case except rs they have been
stated In the newspapers. We are max
ing no charges or insinuations. but deal
exclusively with the question of law IN
yolved in this statement and we affirm,
without the slightest fear Of contradic-
ton. that larceny can be committed by
ovcrdrawing "A bank account as com
sons pocket
The essential element of larceny Is the
taking OF goods or money belonging 10
another with q felonious intent. IL the
fclonious intent, the animus furandi, the
purpose to appropriate TO the takers use
The property of another. is present, lar
oony may he committed never mind by
what means the taking is effected. II a
nan has 1t in his mind to feloniously APP
p.opriate to his own use a banks money
and arranges for that appropriation by
a scheme to get it through an overdraw-
ing of his account that is TO DC concealed
from the responsible managers of the
Lank while the overdrawing goes on. that
il larceny.
A man may commit larceny by finding
IL purse in the street. If he furtively
pocket that purse and do other things
that show an intention to fraudulenuy
appropriate another mans money to his
own use. that IS larceny
In the present case the whole question
would be what was Nelson's knowledge
and intention in persistenuy OVERLAPPING
his account.
If: certainly is not crime per sc for
man TO overdraw his bank account. He
may do ii accidentally. or he may do IT
knowing that he is able TO make the
account good, and that the bank officers
VIII make no serious objection to i. 1t
certainly is not criminal TO overdraw a
bank account under such circumstances.
Bat then. as we have said. If the over
drawing is with fraudulent intention.
II is larceny and the facts that the over
drawer exercised a coercion over the
person who kept his account. TO make
him conceal the overdrafts. that his
means did not Justify his overdrawing
such sums that the frequency Of his
overdrafts and the size of them make Il
impossible that he could have been igno-
rant that he was overdrawing-thc facts
are of essential Importance in determin-
ing whether he overdrew his account with
felonious intent. and if he did. he is
guilty Of larceny.
The public Will not be satisfied unless
and until there is further investigation
OF this case. Let us have the facts what
ever they are. This is no mans affair,
but the public's affair. and private in
tores;3 must stand out OF the way. If
a crime has been committed here. we
must know It, that we may guard against
similar crimes in the future.