The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-01-05
THE SNEDDEN
FAILURE.
A Prosecution Instituted for False
PretenSe.
THE GROCER IS ACCUSED.
Lawyer Burke Brought the Prosecution
on a Check That Was Worthless
When Presented.
THE GROCER IS ACCUSED.

A case that has excited considerable in
terest in local business circles during the
past few days is that in which M. NJ
Burke, Esq, appears as prosecutor in a
criminal action against Alexander Sned-
den for false pretense.
1t seems that on the 23rd of December
last, Snedden gave Mr. Burke a check for
$171, dated December Goth, in payment of
a claim due to the Spring Mill Creamery
Company and Allison Bros, of Spring
Mills When the check was presented on
the Goth Suedden not only had no funds
to his credit in the bank, but had over
drawn his account.
Several attempts were subsequently
made to have Snedden redeem the check
but without avail. On December 31st he
confessed two judgments for $500 each to
Mr.. Beatty, of Conshohocken, upon
which an execution was issued, and
Snedden's store was closed that day by
the Sheriff.
On Wednesday Mr. Burke swore out a
warrant for Snedden's arrest on a charge
of false pretense and be was arrested on
! Thursday morning. Mr.. Snedden appeared
before JustiSs-.4Dg.sSngler on The evening Of
.s 80 10 i, 90 ~; Al IiSN.,--"
sci, j. H. Pomeroy Esq, and was given
hearing.
Mr.. Burke testified before the Justice
that letters mailed to Mr.. Snedden re-
questing settlement and his appearance
at the attorneys Office had passed un-
attended to, and even after giving the
check and failing to meet it he paid other
National Bank, was called as witness
and he testified that on December goth
Mr.. Snedden had overdrawn his account
| thirty-six cents and that it had been over
drawn to that amount since December
2OCh.
Mr.. Pomeroy, for the defendant, con-
tended that, admitting all that was
claimed by the prosecution, there could
be no such thing as false pretense under
the law. IT, he said, Mr.. Snedden said or
represented that his account was good
and would cover the amount of the check,
and it did not cover it, then it was
a lie, but no false pretense, as de
| fined by the statutes of the state. Mr..
Pomeroy entered into discussion of the
crime of false pretense as laid down in
the Act of Assembly and explained the
decisions of the courts, holding that in
order to bring the act of the defendant
within the definition it would have to be
shown that by some misrepresentation he
had received some consideration, or some
| value from the prosecutor
| Mr.. Burke's contention was that all the
acts of the defendant from the time he
| issued the check down to the time his
store was closed would have to be taken
into consideration by the Justice in deter.
mining the intention of the defendant, as
to whether it was not his purpose to de-
fraud the clients OF the prosecutor and
ward off a suit by them against him until
such time as he could have the Sheriff
close his place under an execution and
thus deprive the clients of the prosecutor
of an opportunity to seize upon his stock
for the amount of their claim.
Justice Dengler gave the attorneys
until eight o'clock last evening to present
authorities and when that hour arrived
the case was again postponed until this
evening for the same purpose.
Much interest is manifested in the out
come, especially by the numerous travel
ing sale amen who live here and visit the
town, although number of them whC
have spoken of the case say they do moi
think Mr.. Snedden can be held in the
present action.