The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-01-26


Jury TO return verdict Of guilty
against the defendant, may BIO stat
ed as follows:
1sti THAT said Lawrence A. Culver
on or about the 80th day Of June A
y. 1892 In Hooking county, Ohio
: was the President and agent OF The
Peole's Bank of Logan.
End: That The Peoples Bank oi
Logan was then and there q partner
; ship heretofore formed at the village
of Logan, in said county, for the pur.
pose Of and whichIwas then and there
carrying on general banking, de-
I posit, loan and discount business
with Il capital stock of fifty thousand
dollars, divided into shares of one
hundred dollars each, and the gov.
ernment of which o-partnership
aforesaid was, by its rules, vested in
board of nine directors, which di-
rectors aforsaid, duly elected and
empowered under the rules of the
partnership aforesaid, had, prior
to the Both day of June aforesaid,
duly elected, appointed and employ
ed the said Lawrence A. Culver as
President and agent of The Peoples
Bank Of Logan aforesaid.
3rd: That by virtue of the employ
|
President and agent of The Peoples
Bank of Logan, as. aforesaid, there
came into the possession of him, the
said Lawrence A. Culver, then and
there, money of the amount and
value of thirty thousand dollars or
other sum.
4th: That said money was the prop
erty of the said The Peoples Bank
of Logan.
9Th: That said money of the
amount and value of thirty thous-
and dollars or other sum, the proper
ty of the said Peoples Bank of Lo-
gan, as aforesaid, he, the Lawrence
A. Culver, then and there unlawfully
and fradulently did embezzle and
convert to his own use, without the
consent Of the said Peoples Bank of
Logan, then and there employers of
| him, the said Lawrence A. Culver,
as aforesaid, and without the consent
of the said board of directors of said
The Peoples Bank of Logan, or Of
any of the said directors thereof; he,
the said Lawrence A. Culver, being
| then and there the President and
agent of said Bank, as aforesaid, and
not being a person within the age of
eighteen years, and not being an ap-
prentice.
The court here repeats that the
burden of proof resting upon the
State, and the rule respecting reason
able doubt of guilt, as above stated,
apply to each of the above stated
material allegations of the indict-
ment; and if the State has failed to
produce the requisite evidence, un-
der the law as herein laid down, to
establish any one of said material
allegations, the defendant must go
acquit.
Tn offence of embezzlement, un--
der the law of Ohio, and as charged
in the indictment, consists of three
parts, viz:
lst, The money alleged to have
been eInbezzled by the accused must
have come lawfully into his possess
ion, by virtue Of his alleged employ
ment, as the President and agent of
said Bank,
2nd, The accused must have mis-
appropriated, or converted thel
money alleged to have been embezzl- |
cd to his own use, or to the use of
himself and others, wrongfully and |
without the consent of said bank, or |
of its said directors.
And 3rd, the accused must have so |
misappropriated or converted the |
money alleged to have been embezzl-
ed to his own use, or his own and |
others uses, with the criminal intent |
to defraud and cheat the banking CO.
partnership of the same.
The embezZler criminally intends |
to make his smisappropriation or con
version of the thing misappropriated,
or converted, permanent; he Grim.
inally intends never to account for |
orreturn it.
The crime of embezzlement Is u.s.
ually committed under such circum-
stance Of secrecy and concealment
chat it cannot be proved by direct or
positive evidence.
In such cases, the alleged crime of
embezzlement may be proved by
what the law calls circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence
is evidence from which the facts in
question are not directly proved, but
are inferred from facts duly proved,
or from circumstances and facts (duly
proved) which either necessarily or
attend such facts as those in
question.
So the several parts of the alleged
offence of embezzlement-indeed the
otfence-may be proved
By circumstantlal evidnce.
But to warrant the conviction of
the defendant, upon circumstantial
evidence alone, of the embezzlement
charge against him in the Indictment,
the circumstances must be proved to
the satisfaction of the jury, and
must be of such logical connection
md cOoencV and hearing unon tha
alleged criminal act as to carry con-
yiction, beyond reasonable doubt, to
,he minds of the jury, that the de-
endant is guilty of embezzlement, as
ne stands charged in the Indictment.
If the jury find from the evidence,
beyond all reasonable Goubt, that the
defendant misappropriated or CON :
'erted to his use, or to the. use of
iimsclf and others with whom he
vas associated in business enterpris- {
IS, the money he is alleged in tho in
lictmcnt to have embeZzled; but,
urther find from the evidence that
le so took said money belonging to 1
aid banking co o-partnership, and in
.Ood faith and with honest inten-
ions and reasonably expecting to be
bile and intending to fully account {
or and repay the same with lawful
interest, used it in his own business
+ invested it in the business of a firm d
+ which he was a member, with Z
uch reasonable expectation and
0nest intention to account for and U
ay back the money, with interest, 4
nd ii Is lost without fault or fraud
II his part, he Is not guilty of en-
ezzlinG said money as charged in S
m 10