The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-09-22
Town OF SUFFOLK
Lot Justice Re Done.
Suffolk, Va, Sept. 20, Il

Mr.. Editor:
The uniform fairness of The Virglnian
the columns to say a word respectinR n
matter that has caused much Comment
here and elsewhere among both lawyers
We refer to the recent trial Of Town Urea.
sur , Wright for embezzlement
any. and With no motive saWe p he f to
tee, The facts developed upon the trial
Of this case are Substantially as follows:
MT; wright had been treasurer of the town
of SUFFOLK for several years. Many thou
ssnd dollars had passed through his hands
tlement with the proper authorities and
took a receipt in full for all moneys
due the town; Some time after this the
TED an examinatlon of the books and ac-
s1nnts ,, of fEH,Treasurer Wright The ex,
hat Mr Wr as ow was ~, claimed sh9wed
s6.I2.S5 This money Mr.. Wright paid un
der protest. and with the distinct UNDER
standing that 1t was to be refunded if upon
did not owe 1t. Yet after Mr.. Wright had
paid all that was claimed that he owed
Wright owes the town OF Sufroik money
that that he has not accounted for and there
rather that he didn't account for ali the
money due the town when he went out of
bezzlement. and that 1t would be com
pounding Felony to- receive the money
now Iir and nfl,d not prosecute Mr.. Wright.
CONSCIENTIOUS. Against them we bring no
tacc'satioh' put ~ II not little strange
that they should be so conscientious in
Inc dlscharge OF their duties in the case of
Town Treasurer Wright, and so Negligent
OF their duty uf II Is their duty In the
case of County Treasurer Smith? Some
months since our county treasurer Was
iound TO be short IN his accounts over
s sSntIO, me matter was brought to the at
tenlion OF the Commemorative Attorney.
ri Of On,
pervisors. Va 81
Did he not advise the Supervisors to re-
celve the money from the bondsmen OF the
county treasurer? Did he not FIX the
amount An ,i each bondsman was to pay, and
a h.a ne not advise against prosecution OF
Icute? " prose-
Nc Now, why, the difference between the
uea .Iment OF the county and town trea-
surer? In one case the county treas l,rer
~ SNORT IN his accounts with the county
oyer ow ~, ,tSo'ooo; over $1,000 OF which remuins
Unpaid. anu he ts not prosecuted In the
other case the town treasurer paws ali thai
the authorities of the town claim that he
u uan,' auu YET ne Is indicted for embezzle-
m Where Is the difference In the crime
ui any was committedD and why the diff
terence In the treatment?
~ 10 receive money that was due from
the town treasurer without prosecution
' maS 10 compound felony, why was II not
where IS the difference in the crime ar an nx
Wa, MAS comnitted) and why the differnce in
the treatment? May It not be that even
n,lnconsciously our officers of the law are.
~ tnis case, nctuatcd by influences other
IMAM an honest desire toward the perform
a ai OF duty? We do not believe that
eltner the town or county treasurer com
United or intended to commit a felony II
they were short In their accounts (Which is
oehled IN the case OF the town treaslrer1
tney or their friends settled the mater.
anc there the whole thing should have
Stopped Men may be unfortunate and GET
Tsinnd IN their accounts without being
ns ana TINS We believe to be the case
o. our county treasurer. and therefore
mink the authorities did right when tbev
refused 70 prosecute him and did wrong IN
prosecuting Town Treasurer Wright for
what they claimed to be similar OFFENCE
Let justice be done.
AMERJCJrS