The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-08-08
BEDFORD BANK
CASES ENDED.
Cashier J. ". Smiths AcquittaI at
Bedford City.
THE CHARGE OF MAKING A FALSE
STATEMENT WAS NOT sUs-
TAINED-OTHER INDICTMENTS
AGAINST HIM WERE DISMISSED
UNDER THE STATUTE-MoTIoNs
TO TAKE STEPS TO REINDlCT t.
d. BERRY WAS OvERRULED.

~.
The Lynchburg News says: Messrs.
Lee Il Howard sent a telegram to their
secretary here yesterday from Bedford
City stating that their client, James w.
Smith, cashier of the defunct Liberty
savings Bank, who was being tried on
the charge OIL makinga false statement as
TO the condition of the bank, had been
acquitted. a telegram to the same eff oct
was received Mr.. ]. L. Coleman, of the
firm Of Caskie & Coleman, counsel for
Mr.. It'd. Berry
Additional information received last
night WAS TO the effect that the grounds
on which Mr.. Smith was acquitted we're
set forth III II plea of res adjudicata en-
tered IN the case by Messrs. Lee &
toward ~ special vnnire of thirty men
had been secured for the trial OF the case
from Radford, ald when the plea re-
lerred to was entered, counsel for the
prosecution took issue, and the Jury was
empanneled to determine whether or nor
the fncts ms alleged In the plea were true
There were a number of indictments
against Mr.. Smith, but all of them, en-
cept the one on which he had been tried
were dismissed on the grounn. (as in the
case of Mr.. Berry, that four terms of
the county court had passed without the
indictments being tried. When, how
ever, IL came to n consideration of the IN
dictment for making false statement.
other measures were adopted by Mr..
Smiths counsel
When the supervisors of Bedford
county first began proceedings against
Mr.. Smith. the indictments were drawn
ny Major L. j. Kirkpatrick, of this city.
when MIR. a. II. Burroughs afterwards
entered entered into the case for the
prosecution, the indictments were re-
drawn, but the indictm ents drawn by
Major kirkpatrick were not dismissed
for several months. Recently, however,
the kirkpatrick indictments were dis
missed. ssapd Mr. Smiths counsel claimed
that In this action of the court the
charge was dismissed on which Mr.. Smith
was being tried. Their plea briefly
stated, was as follows:
land the said James w. Smith. being
brought to the bar of this court and hav-
ing heard the said indictments read and
the matters therein contained, says that
ne ought not toibe put TO answer the said
lndictment, he having been mt the April
term, 1896, of the county court of Bed
ford county, indicted by II grand Jury
| duly constituted by the said court for the
same.aleged otfense, that is, the oifense
or making false statement: that the
said Indictment has been pending and he
has been held for trial by said county
court on said Indictment from the time
of finding said indictment until the July
term of 1897 of said county court, aud
there have been four regular terms of
said county court in which he has been
held for trial without the trial uncn said
/ Indictment The failure to try him has
not been caused by his insanity, or by
witnesses of the commonwealth being en-
ticed or kept away or prevented from
attending by sickness or inevitable acct
denton by reason Of his scape from Jail,
or failing to appear according to his re.
cognizance;or by he inability Of the Jury
to agree on verdict; or there being no
court held ut regular term, and the said
county court by it's solemn Judgment and
word, made and entered at It's July term
OF 1897. forever discharged him from
prosecution for the offence with which he
WAS charged by the Indictment aforesaid.
"And the said j. w. Smith AYERS that
the j. w. Smith mentioned in the
former indctmnt and the J. w. Smith,
who is charged IN the present Indictment,
are one and the same person and not
different persons; that the Liberty Saw.
ings Bank mentioned in one Indictment
and.the Liberty Savings Bank mentioned
in the other Indictment are the same in.
SIltuIiol. nhC Jne statement OF the
financial condition Of the .bauk mention.
ed in the former Indictment is tie same
as the statement mentioned in the
present Indictment; and the said !. w.
Smith further AYERS that the offence and
felony mentioned and charged in the
former indictment is one and the sane
offense and felony charged i" the present
indictment; wherefore he, the said j. w.
Smith, prays that the present indictment
! he disnlissed.'i
! In the telegram to Mr.. Coleman men.
tion of which is made above, 1t was stnted
that Judge Barksdale, who has been pre-
siding in the Trial of these cases, overruled
yesterday morning the motion made BY
counsel for the prosecution, to summon
n special grand jury for the reindictment
of Mr.. Berry.
After the verdict dismissinc.the indi. {.
ments against Smith, a motion was made
by counsellor prosecution to summon a
special grand. jury to reindict both Mr..
Berry and Mr.. Smith, but the court
overrn;ed the motion on the ground that
he SAW mo reason for such action and
that the prosecution of the case had pre- :
ceehed far enough
4