The Redwood gazette., 1896-05-15

CudC Iu0 O0l0uOouC oOAACSCA A1'AA6
taken cash from the bark, but rather
bills receivable. The witness could
not state whether the defendant con-
fessed to having taken the Neale note
or the cash equivalent, when collected
Dwight Bissell, another bank direct
or present at the alleged confession,
denied threats of arrest havings been
made at the Board meeting at the
time of the alleged confession. He al
so affirmed defendants confession OF
the transfer Of funds to w. P. Dun
nington's account and could not say
why he paid more for his half of the
building than C. Fred Thompson.
According to Bissell Turrell admitted
having collected the $3.50 Neale note
and placed the money in his pocket
without making an entry. When
asked whether he did not use some of
the banks money to buy bicycles
with, the defendant said II don't
know; i guess l did," according to
Bisselps testimony. On cross exam
ination Mr.. Bissell said that R. a..
Turrell merely confessed that he had
given w. P. Dunnington credit for
$1,000 and had not paid him the
cash.
Alonzo Neale was recalled and ad-
mitted that he never paid the $3.50
note himself and that he never re-
ceived it until several days after it
was paid. The State then rested-at
just 2:1O.
Attorney Somerville for the defense
moved for the dismissal of the case
on the ground that the State had to-
tally failed to make out a case. He
contended that there was no proof
that the bank had been defrauded, so
far as the defendant was concerned.
The only evidence against him was
his own confession and the books.
The attorney said the credit given to
Dunnington was not an evidence of
the crime; that there was no evidence
that Turrell handed Dunnington the
credit slip. He thought that the
Neale note was given to the defend
ant personally and consequently he.
had a right to pocket it. Attorney
Clague rebutted the statements of
Mr.. iSomerville, and Judge Webber
denied the motion to dismiss.
The defense waived its opening Of
its side of the case and called upon f
w. Philbrick, j. "A. Schmahl, Dwight
Bissell, o. W. Mcmillan, F. e. Ring
and Ben. Wolf, all of whom testified
that. the reputation Of r. "A. TurrelI
for truth and veracity in this communo
ity, prior to the bank trouble, was
good. Following the evidence Of
these parties the defense moved that
the jury be instructed to return YER.
dict for the defendant. This motion
was denied. i
Mr.. 'Clague summed up for the
State. He admitted.thst they could
not prove 'the entire $3, eco stolen, but
said d'thst if an Amount over SEQ was
proven stolen the State WIS entitled
to a verdict. He said that over $7OOi
was at least accounted for as being
stolen. Mr.. Clzguereviewed the facts.
speaking about 40 minutes.
Judge Baldwin followed for the de-,
feuse. He contended that the directors
we're responsible for the affairs Of the
bank. He pointed out that the di-,
rectors were shrewd men, who loaned
out such large sums to farmers, that
in June, 1893, they were obliged to,
temporarily suspend. After the June
1893 suspension, he said, the directors
the bank and declared to
The world that everything was alright.
Judge Baldwin talked for u hours
and made some startling statements
against the prosecutors of the case.
1t was just ;5s O'Clock when Judge
commenced to charge the
jury. He outlined the charge con-
tanning the indictment and told the
jury that if Turrell appropriated more
than $500 it would be grand larceny
in the first degree, if less than $500
the jury might bring in a verdict of
grand larceny in the second degree,
for which the punishment is less. If
the jury found that Turrell appropri-
ated any money of the bank it must
find him guilty, he said. He told the
jurors that they had right to con-
slider the mismanapement Of the hank