The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-03-20
FOR NEW TRIAL.
Arguments Made in Stei-
merit COS.'S Case.
Defendant Contends Verdict
Should be Set Aside.
Mr.. Beach Makes Some Strong
Points Lawyer Cookies Answer.

Judge Aldrich gave hearing in the
United States District Court this morn
ing in the case of Warren Is. Wesley, adj
pany, on motion to sci aside the verdict
and for a new trial. il will be remem-
bered that this was the case which at
tracted SO much attention a few weeks
ago when the administrator of the estate
of the late Cyrus G. Armstrong got yer-
diet In this court that the Steinert Com
pany had obtained Armstrong; money
under duress and that there was no evi-
dence that he had embczzled any Of the
funds belonging TO the Steinert Company.
John h. Beach, Esq, of New Haven,
the defendant attorney, began his argu-
ment for "A new trial on the ground that
the testimony had shown that by reason
OF Armstrong; raising of the book ac-
counts Henry Steincrt had received per-
centagc OF profit on those fictitious ac-
counts TO which he was not entitled and
that the money came out Of the company
and that Armstrong was responsible for
the loss TO the company. Mr.. Beach also
said that the testimony showed that the
bank slips and ledger accounts or book
account denoted a loss to the company of
more than $1,000.
Judge Aldrich said that his charge to
the jury might have been too general and
the case in this matter of loss by reason
of the profit from fictitious accounts.
He said there was "a point in this objection
and that the defendants attorney might
ask for writ of error. -
There were four points in the defena-
ants brief and Judge Beach reviewed
them at length.
tion, stated that the charge To the jury
was clear and easily understood. TIE
jury could not possibly make ~ mistake.
1t was to the effect that ii the jury found
that Armstrong had taken Steinert
money then the verdict should be rem
dered for the defendant whether there was
duress or not, but If there was no evil
dence of shortage and that Armstrong
paid the money under duress then the yer-
dict must be for the prosecution. Duress
had been shown and the jury had said
that Armstrong had not taken any of the
Stcinert money.
Judge Aldrich asked Judge Cook 20
answer the defence regarding the bank
slips and the non-irppearance of the dis
bursement of the money for the benefit of
the Steinert Company Judge Cook spoke
of the contradictory statements of the ex-
pert bookkeepers and the freedom with
which the books were handled by every
one, claiming that Armstrong could not
be held responsible Judge Aldrich did
IlOt tnlS ~ SObt uIsWtI dIsl tic
counsel for the prosecution was arguing
the particular point when the court an
nounced "a recess from / 10 To 2:l5 O'Clock.
Judge Cook continuing his argument
after the recess said that II the duplicate
bank slips could have been obtained some
light could have been obtained upon the
subject But the duplicates could not be
produced. He called the attention of the
jury to the fact at the time of the trial If
the slips could have been produced and
they showed the outs they would demon
strate that there was no embezzlement
There are several things that would con-
tribute to the apparent discrepancy in
the accounts. There might have been dis
bursements for the benefit of the COM
pany that would account for the differ
ence Mr.. Cook said that $3.50 had been
taken from Mr.. Armstrong under duress
and the burden is upon the defendants to
show why they should hold the money
obtained from Armstrong. They must
establish the fact that Armstrong had the
Steinertl money for his own purpose.
Not that Henry and Edward Stcinert or
any other person was benefited by Arm
strong's actions. Even II there was a de-
ficit il must be shown that 1t existed be-
cause of cmbezzlement by Armstrong and
in no other way.