The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-06
[E ROY G. HARVEY
GOES SCOT FREE
He Got $4,000 Worth of
Mrs. Smiths Prop
erty.
Technicalities Stood in the
Way of Successful
Prosecution.
District Attorney Barnes Said the
c mp aiming Witnesses Had
Grown Lukewarm.

The indictments against lie Roy G.
Harvey for embezzlement and grand lar
ceny growing out of his appropriatlng 10
his own use about $4,000 worth OF bonds
and other property belonging to his CHI
ents have been dismissed.
When the grand larceny case against
Harvey was called by Judge Bahrs yester-
day morning it was apparent that there
was but little interest felt III the proceed
ings by Harvey himself, who evidently
knew that he was soon to be freed from
further responsibility for his extensive
peculations. There was no pretense that
he did not get the money, but 1t seemed
to be agreed that he had so far imposed on
the trustfulness of Mrs. Emily A. Z. Smith
and her daughter that it would pc difficult
to secure a verdict of conviction.
Harvey appeared to be particularly we'll
pleased with himself, and it was noted
that he was by far the best dressed m an
in the courtroom, not even excepting his
Honor Judge Bahrs and District Attorney
Barnes, both of whom are strictly up TO
date in the matter of wearing apparel. 1t
could scarcely be expected, however, that
mere public officials could outshine
tinancier like Harvey, whose superior
abilities have placed at his disposal fund
of $4,000 that he may safely devote to
personal adornment.
Before moving to dismiss the charge OF
grand larceny against Harvey the District
Attorney read and filed with the clerk of
the court the following letter:
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 25, 1896.
Hon. " s. Barnes, District Attorney, San Fl an
CISCO Cal.-DEAR SIR: My daughter and are
the complaining witnesses in the cases OF the
People against lie Roy g. Harvey now pending
trial in Judge Bahrs' court. Since the former
trio LON or n n Qp.
quittai of Harvey, We have come TO the con-
clusion that, under all the circumstances of
the case, we do not wish to proceed further
with the matter, and therefore we request you
10 dismiss the charges.
Trusting that this will meet with your ap-
probation and action, remain, yours truly,
EMILY A. p SMITH,
MAUDE A. SMITH.
M. Barnes said that on account of the
peculiar circumstances under which Har-
vey obtained possession OF the property
! and the lukewarm feeling and disinclina-
ton of the complaining witnesses to pro-
/ coed with a vigorous prosecution, he
could not feel much hope of securing a
conviction. 1t appeared to be breach of
trust on the part of Harvey, who had
taken advantage Of the conf dence reposed
! in him by the ladies whose property he
had appropriated.
! The ruling OF the court at Harvev's for
mer trial on the charge of embezZlement,
wherein the same property was concerned,
was also referred to by Mr.. Barnes. As
| the jury then had been instructed to
acquit, it seemed that without the hearty
cooperation of Harvey s. victims it would
be waste of the public funds TO proceed
further with trial when conviction
would be almost out of the question.
Judge Bahrs wanted 10 know if the
District Attorney moved to dismiss the
case, and Mr.. Barnes replied in the affirm
| rrh n " n in
| accordance with the District Attorney s
request.
Harvey stalked haughtiIy from the
/ courtroom.