Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-06
I be made. n VAS knocked cut 10 hirn,
DENIED ALL ALLEGATIONS.

DENIED ALL ALLEGATIONS.
The accused denied all the allegations
OF qarceny, and asserted several times
that ne had acted legtimately in all his
transactions with Mrs. PeyroDnet. having
gone out OF his way to protect her. even
to the detriment OF some OK his other
customers.
Continuing his direct testimony, wit
ness said that he paid Mrs. Peyronnet
her interest on the $500 for two years.
He asserted that the Banks brothers
owe Crawford & Co. 1850 or s2,cOo OUT
side OF Mrs. Peyronncts affairs. and on
that account ne did not like to crowd
them. II was never so surprised III my
life as when Mr.. Gayle threatened 10
have me arrested" said witness.
when Mrs. Peyronnet called az my
Office with that $500 check, Mr.. Pollock
hold Mr.. Meredith's Obligation yet for
Z, Ooo on account OF the Charles City
sale. The property stands to-day In ine
name Of Trevilian and Charles Banks,
although the form of the sale was gon"
through with. whereby 1t goes 10 the
Rochester man, whose name 1 can't re-
member"
At this point the fact was brought
out that one of the Banks negroes was
al present fugitive from justice. out
Mr.. Crawford said he knew nothing Oh IT,
OTHER WITNESSES HEARD.
Tho accused concluded his testimony at
this point. and was succeeded py MI.
cubert Pollock. who was in 1883 ana
1890 book-keeper for George Il. CRAWFORD
He said that in 1889 he found that Craw-
ford was indebted TO Mrs. Peyronnet III
the sum of $500 Subsequently VOW au-
ditional was placed to the credit Oh IA. D
Pevronnet. the amount being secured py
Crawfords note bearing per cent. ih-
forest per annum. He didn't hho"
whether Mrs. Peyronnet brought tne
money to Crawford, or he went ai'e. ~,
though he had vague impression eha'
the former was the case.
Mr. w. Il. Pizzni, Mr.. Crawford part
ner testified as to the sale OF the CharseS
CITY property under the deen Oh 'luS''
and explained briefly how. after tne io,e-
closure. the sale dropped through.
was unable to shed any hght on .he
case, and was told TO stahu "'iue' INV
case being rested there.
THE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Wendenburg argued the case as
serting that there was not sslhthia
90 audience TO show that Crawford had
anv intent to defraud Mrs. Peyronnet'
He did not ask, though, for dlschaise
of his client but requested paii lor hi'i'
with q nominal amount fixed as secuiils'
Mr.. Wise replied to Mr. WehoehouIs'
and severely arraigned the prisoner, VINO
he said had clearly defrauded Mrs. Pey-
ropnet ont of the money. He Knew
said Mr.. Wise. that the negroes Banks
would not be able to pay for the pro-
nertv or the loan, and he had himseir
kent the interest up for more than iour
years Why did he pay this interest!
he asked. Because he didn't want 10
arouse her suspicious, and didn't want ner
to investigate"
Mr. Richardson concluded the argu-
- for the prosecution. reviewing the
evidence at length. He asserted thae
Mr. crawford had undoubtedly secured
the money in question from Mrs. Peyroh-
net under false pretences. Ihere was
fraud in the very inception or the trans
action" he said, 'and instead OF Mrs'
Peyronnet being secured by nrst mort
gage. as Crawford represented 10 ner'
there is another mortgage on 'ne pro
nerty. ahead of her, and IN TINS mortgages,
George r. Crawford is the penenciary.
Mr.. Richardson dissected careluiiy ana
analyzed critically the testimony gwen
by Crawford, anu Sho"N"
bit of evidence had been presented 10
show that the Banks brothers ever paio
a cent to Mrs. Peyronnet.
Mr.. Wendenburg closed the case with
an argument that the crime had 10 De
committed at the time of the disposition
of the money in order to maintain
nrosecution. and what transpired supse-
ouentlv had nothing 10 do with II. he
then elaborated on the fact that the
testimony was all as to events supse-
ouent to the making Of the loan, ana
that the disposition of the money ante
dated all charges of fraud.
BAIL REFUSED.
Mfr. Wendenburg made strong appeal
for hail. but Justice Crutchiield over
ruled il. saying that he could only bail
a felony case when there was only a
sIieht suspicion of guilt. In this case
bowever. there was a great dpl more
than a slight suspicion, and he would.
therefore have to hold the prisoner. He
tbereupon continued the case over until
Saturday, the 18th.
Mr. Wendenburg at once gave notice
that he would take the case before Judge
witt on a writ of habeas corpus, and
as soon as a mitimus was made out the
LAWYERS. witnesses, and prisoner re-
naired 10 the Hastings Court Another
case was in progress there. however, and
tho matter was postponed until $50
o'clock. when bail was granted, as al
ready stated.