The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-15
CRAWFORD NOT GUILTY.
THE JURY ONLY REQUIRES A FEW
MINUTES TO DECIDE,
Commemorative Attorney Richardson
Unable to Go Into the Case and Mr..
Wise Takes 1t Alone,

Only Few minutes were required by
the jury In the Hastings Court to re-
turn verdict of not guilty yesterday in
the case Of the Commonwealth against
George H. Crawford, who was charged
with embeZzling a certificate OF deposit
FOR 2,OOo belonging TO Mrs. Catherine
Peyronnet.
Commonwealth Attorney Richardson
had not sufficiently recovered to take
part In the case yesterday. and Mr..
George T.. WISE who was assisting in the
proecution. had 10 conduct his side alone.
Messrs. Hill Carter and l.; .. Wendeh-
burg represented the defendant.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
The first witness called was Mr.. w. -.
Priddy who knew the Banks negroes, and
did not speak faVoTaLly OF their financial
responsibility.
Mr.. John Tresner was at one time with
Messrs. g. r.. Crawford q Co. lie went
TO see Mrs. PeyTonnet, and she mentioned
the advertisement OF the sale Of the prop
erty OF the Banks I'm Charles city. ana
said she was glad to hear that II was TO
be sold. She seemed TO understand All tne
arrangements for the sale made with MT
Thomas Lehey of Rochester. The prop
erty was 10 have been sold for not less
than $3.50.
On cross-examnation by Mr. Wise Mr..
Tresner said the property was SOLO 10 tne
Rochester man for $5s5l by Mr.. CRAWFORD.
Lehey had never seen the land, uu1
bought It on the representations OF MI
Crawford.
Mr. c. A. Crawford. brother OF the de,
PENDANT, testified in regard TO the sever
sales of the property by him as trustee
lie knew nothing OF the reservation OF
the timber in the deed.
In regard TO the sale to Mr.. Fleming
Meredith, Mr.. Wise asked II MI Nero
dith had never paid any money on the
purchase how the expenses OF executing
the trust had been paid. as SHOWN III =
statement. which he read.
THE TIMBER.
At this juncture Mr.. Wendenoutg askee
leave to Introduce a. evidence deed OF
trust i'm which the timber on the CnaIl.s
city property was conveyed 10 MI. =. a.
Crawford as trustee. 10 secure notes CIV
Mr. PurceII who at one time worked
on Mr.. CTawford's farm In Hanover ooun-
~. was placed on the stand 10 teStliy III
regard TO the defendants books ana eN-
planned that they were ruined by tne Top
OF the box being left off accidentally ana
rubbish being thrown on them. lie had
never examined the books. but knew
they were books OF accounts by me iet
tering on the backs. The books were lel.
in the stable while moving; he had never
examined them.
Mr.. Frick. who was also employed by
Mr. Crawford. knew nothing OF the DOCKS
except by hearsay.
MIR Pollock. who was Mr.. Crawford's
book-keeper at the time Of the transac-
ton with Mrs. Peyronnet was called us
impression in regard 10 the $500 was mat
MTS. PcNTOnnet ldu DiDuSAA Ai' iA'iA'+
to the office for deposit.
Mr.. Pollock said Mr.. Crawford ala
private banking business. ana rendered
Mrs. Peyronnet periodical statements OF
her account showing That the money WSs
on deposit. She never objected 10 me
statements. and during his connection
with the firm the interest was paid regu-
larry.
Mrs. Nellie Keath. a niece OF Mrs. Pey-
ronnet. said her aunt often referred 10
the money in question, but seemed 70 re
gard It In the light OF a loan ana mao
told Ter that il paid her better 70 loan the
money 10 Crawford than any other invest
ment she could make Mrs. Peyrohne
said she wondered why Mr. Crawford did
compromise the case. Mrs. keath : re-
lations with her aunt had always been
pleasant.
The defense then rested.
Mr. w. y. PZzini. for long time con-
nected with the firm Of Crawford x CO..
had not seen the books recently ,Nnen.
he came into the firm on January ]. 1884.
the books OF the old firm were taken
away except the ledger. and ne had not
seen this since last November. TINS
book had only been used as memoran-
dunn book. lie knew nothing or the mon
ey Of Mrs. Peyronnet.
Mrs. Peyronnet was again called on the
stand. She denied having told Mrs
Keath that she had loaned the money 10
Mr. Crawford. in regard to the cOmpro-
mise she had reference to his having had
time to do so before the prosecution be-
gan.
no ARGUMENT.
When the taking of testimony had
been completed the counsel for both SIDES
expressed their willingness 10 submit the
case without argument. Judge witt ask
ed the jury IL they wished 10 hear ar
gument and Juror w. b. Kidd promptly
responded in the negative.
4 ne Jury retired &C l2.Oi +. NJ ana re-
turned at 12:17 with a request for instruc-
lions as to the loan.
The court instructed that the jury must
believe beyond a doubt that Mr.. Craw-
ford unlawfully and fraudulently con-
verted the money TO his own uses to con-
Wet. and that If they believed Mrs. Pey-
ronnet loaned the money 10 Mr.. Crawford
they must find the prisoner not guilty.
NOT GUILTY.
The Jury again retired at 1919. ana az
1921 returned with a verdict Of not gull
ty. and the defendant was discharged
The verdict was received I'm profound ST.
lence. and Mr.. Crawford was soon sur
rounded by friends who extended con-
gratulations. >.
Mr.. Crawford was. of course, much re-
lieved at the verdict. although from the
first he has stOutly asserted That TINS
FOL. Ia "a