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

w NhO uoS VI SUM WI pOTutiOh W
partnership, to defrnud said bank
and without any reasonable antlei.
patton Of repayment.
That the defendant being placed
In said bank by the directors for
the purpose OF using its money by
loaning it, and otherwise, he can
not be held criminally responsible
for the exercise of bad judgment in
the management Of the business
intrusted to him.
That evidence OF. declarations OF
Il defendant when not made under
duress, is competent to be received
in proof of the allegations of the
indictment, but when said declara-
tions or admissions are offered to
the jury they must be considered
as an entirety as far as the jury be-
| lieves them and taken as whole,
and If it Is found by the jury that
certain parts of such admissions or
declarations are eXculpatory, and
tend to the exonoration Of the de-
fenhant, it is the duty of the jury
to consider such eXculpatory state
ments, not to exclude them, and to
give them due weight in arriving
at verdict.
That it is necessary to establish
by the evidence and beyond a
reasonable doubt that the conver-
sion by the defendant OF the funds
Of the bank was with intent to de-
fraud said bank, and without the
consent of its board of directors
and that as matter Of law it is
not necessary to show that the con-
sent of said directors was express
ly given, but if the jury find from
the evidence that said Peoples
Bank had n board Of directors
whose duty it was to supervise and
control the loaning of money of
said bank, and that said board SO
neglected its duty as to pay no at
tention to the business of said bank
and left the conduct of said busi-
ness to defendant alone, then said
directors are estopped to dispute
such ioaning was without their
consent; and in such consent Of the
directors that he conduct said busi-
ness alone may be implied from
the failure of said directors to act
aud perform their duties and their
tacit permission that he so conduct
ed said business alone or without
consultation with them, if such
tacit permission appear from the
evidence facts from which such
permission may be inferred.
If the jury, from the evidence,
find beyond reasonable doubt
that special deposit of money for
safe keeping by the banl, %as left |
with the bank on April Sth, 1892,
and that the defendant, knowing,
il he did so know, that said money
was so deposited, fraudulently con-
verted the same to his own use on
or before June 80, 1892, he is guilty
of embezzling the same as charged |
in the indictment.
If the jury, from the evidence,
find beyond a reasonable doubt
that a special deposit of money fer
safe keeping by the bank, was left
with the bank on April Sth, 1892,
and that the defendant, knowing,
if he did know, that said money
was so deposited, fraudulently con-
Vcrted the same to his own use
on or before June 30th, 1892, not
withstanding he may have used it
in his own business, or Invested ii
in that of II irm of which he was a
member, he is guilty of embezzle-
nent as charged in the indictment.
If the jury from the evidence,
ind beyond a reasonable doubt,
hat special deposit Of money for
safe keeping by the bank, was left
with the bank on April Sth, 1892,
and that the defendant knowing,
t he did know, that said money
vas so deposited fraudulentIy con
'erted the same to his own use on
'r before June 30th, 1892, notwith-
he may have used il in
lis own business, or invested 1t in
hat Of a firm of which he was
member, with honest intentions :
md expecting and intending to
ully account for and return the
anne, and it is lost without any
raud or fault on his part, he is {
utility Of embezzlement as charged
II the Indictment.
A special deposit of money in a {
'ank is one to remain intact and
o be handed back to the special :
epositer, just as it was when de. /
osited, to the special depositor I
'hen he calls for ii, whereas the ~
enerol depositor puts his money {
4 the bank and takes the banks !,