The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-12
SURPRISE AT THE FINDING.

Croker Woolworth Bank was robbed of
$4,000, were yesterday convicted of forg-
cry in Judge Wallace's court. The case
has been on trial for more than a week
ana yesterday was given to the jury.
When court opened Judge Wallace be-
gan his charge to the twelve good men
and true. 1t was rather long and tech
nical address and forty minutes were oc-
cupied in its delivery. Creegan, whose
nerve has never once deserted him during
the progress of the case, remained i'm
passive to the end, but Becker was mani
testify nervous. He fidgeted about in his
chair and pulled spitefully at different
portions of his clothing. Every few min
utes lump would seemingly rise in his
throat and he made continuous efforts to
swallow it.
The attorneys and courtroom attaches
agree that the charge to the jury was
masterful one, fair and unbiased.
After reciting the law in the case, his
Honor said in part:
Inasmueh as there is no ties timony before
the jury tending 10 show that the draft men,
toned in the Indictment was forged in the
City and County of San Francisco, you are in
structed that the only question for you to try
is whether the accusation made against the
defendants of having passed the draft with in
tent to defraud is true. The filing of in
Q1Ctm6nt against the defendants carries with
1t no presumption of guilt and upon their plea
of not guilty the presumption of their inno-
cence is in their favor. Unless that presump-
ton is overcome and removed by sufficient
countervaihng proof OF guilt, the defendants
are entitled to an acquittal.
The defendants have not testified in their
own behalf, but YOU are not to consider that
circumstance as a fact in this case for any pur-
pose. They could testify or not, as they saw
fit, matter which must be utterly ignored by
you in considering this case.
A mars N M ccin On nf
this alleged passing OF the forged draft are
principals in the alleged crime, and the testi-
mony OF such person is but the testimony of an
accomplice, and no conviction can be had on
the testimony OF an accomplice unless such
testimony be cOrroborated by other evidence
which in itself tends to connect the defend
ants with the commission of the offense, and
the roboration is not sufficient ii it merely
| shows the commission of the offense or the
circumstances thereof.
The testimony of an accomplice ought TO be
| viewed by you with distrust. 1t is asserted by
| the prosecution that the passing ana utterng
| of the draft was committed by Creegan and
| Becker, in confederation with one Dean; that
! the draft was forged by one OF them in the
| county OF Alameda and passed upon the Ne
vada Bank by another of them. If such be the
| fact all three are guilty, and the declarations
| and acts of one in the promotion OF their COM
| mon purpose are to be taken as the decaya-
| tons and acts of each and all of them and are
| to be considered by you as evidence against
| both Creegan and Becker. 1t is only if you be
| satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
| IncTe WIS SuCn CONGREGATION between
| the three that you can consider the
! alleged conversations between Dean and
| Creegan in the absence of Becker as evidence
against the latter; of course, if you are salts
| fed tina! Creegan held such conversations
! with Dean, they must be considered as evil
dence against Creegan, but if you believe that
| Becker was not party to the conspiracy then
| Creegan could not lncrimtnate him by saying
| to Dean that ne, Becker, was such party.
/ witness false in one part of his testimony
! is to be distrusted in others. Evidence of oral
| admissions of q marty must he ViaXyad vi h
! caution. A witness may be impeached by evil
| dence that he has been convicted OF a felony.
! Even though you may believe the testimony
of one who is an aceomplice, the law forbids
| you to convict upon such testimony unless it
be corroborated by independent evidence
! tending to connect the defendants with the
| commission Of the crime.
| 1t is claimed that Dean alone passed the
! draft upon the bank and not that Cree gan
| or Becker were present, but you are instructed
| that even though Dean alone passed it. still
| If he was acting in concert and confederation
| with Creegan and Becker, they are jointly en-
| gage5 with him in the criminal enterprise. So
! doing all have been equally and alike guilty
| of the crime.
The Jury retired at AS, and it was soon
reported that the first ballot stood seven
for conviction and five for acquittal. The
accused passed the time talking with
their attorneys and listening to the ar
Regiments of a crowd of offenders, who
were brought before the court to plead.
At 1920 the jury returned and the fore
man announced that verdict had been
agreed upon.
Becker turned pale and then the blood
| mounted to his face, and he blushed as
rosily as a maid of 16. Creegan moved
squarely about and faced the jury.
What is your verdict, gentlemen" in
quired Judge Wallace.
1--WE, the jury, find the defendants
| guilty of forgery in uttering and passing
the draft as charged in the indictment,
and so say We all" replied Foreman
Joseph j. Twohig.
The verdict was a surprise to nearly
every one present, as the belief prevailed
that the defendants would either be ac-
| Quilted or that the jury would disagree.
Creegan never moved a muscle while the
| verdict was being read, but Becker was
| greatly agitated. He almost collapsed,
and as he walked out of the courtroom
was very unsteady.
The verdict, in view of Judge Wallace s
charge, has a peculiar phase. While the
| defendants were convicted of having
passed the forged draft in San Francisco,
| the forgery took place in Alameda County,
and hence Creegan and Becker are liza bic
to con viction there on charge of forgery.
They will be sentenced on Monday.
4