The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-05-19

bezzling the sum OF $3,O72, while acting
as assistant postmaster, under c. r.
Barratt. at Salt Lake City, was yester-
day morning sentenced by Judge Mar
shall to four years Imprisonment in the
state prison. Judge Marshall denied a
motion for new trial, and for an ar
rest of judgment Ninety days were
granted counsel for the defense in
which to file bill of exceptions, but
| bail was denied.
In the federal court, on the 9Th inst,
| Mcbride was found guilty as charged in
the first count of the indictment. which
alleged that defendant, on Jan. 10. 1897,
| and other days, while acting as as
sistant postmaster, had in his posses
sion $3,072, which he did embezzle and
| convert to his own use.
| McBrides term as assistant pOstmas-
| ter under c. r. Barratt covered the
period from May l, 1895, to Jan. IA,
1897.
Mcbride, who has been confined in
| the county Jail since the trial, appeared
in court in the custody of Marshal Glen
Miller. few minutes before 8 o'clock
yesterday morning. Mrs. Mcbride, wife
| of the defendant, joined her husband
| later. and preserved a calm spirit dur
ing the greater part of the proceedings,
| being moved to tears, however, by
1ONCIS lOQCullS dPDCdl loI d
new trial. The prisoner made no state
ment before sentence was pronounced,
| but received his doom with self-cOm-
posture. He then left the court room,
and after a touching farewell to his
wife, was escorted to prison by Marshal
Miller.
} ARGUES FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Before sentence was pronounced, ex-
Senator. Arthur Brown, of counsel for
McBi1 Ole. moved for a new trial, on the
grounds:
First-That the evidence presented
was insufficient to justify a verdict of
guilty.
Second-Errors of law in the charge
of the court.
Third-Errors of law in admission of
testimony.
Fourth-That the verdict is against
the instructions of the court.
Mr.. Brown stated that he believed
the man innocent, and asked that he be
given another chance before sentence
was pronounced and his life ruined. He
was very much surprised at the finding
of the jury, and could not believe that
such verdict would be returned ON
the evidence presented. The evidence
was circumstantial, and not sufficient
to establish the fact of a shortage. The
burden was placed on the defendant to
account for a shortage. He could be
held for shortage only in case he
had exclusive control of the funds and
stamps. In this case the defendant had
equal custody with another, and, in
order to establish his guilt, there must
be evidence to show that the other
person was not to blame. In this he did
not wish to infer that C. r. Barratt
was guilty, but it was necessary to
have BarrattS testimony to do justice
to Mcbride. The conviction rested on
the testimony of one man, Inspector
Nichols, who discovered the shortage
after Mcbride had ceased to be as
sistant postmaster. 1T is a fearful
thing" said Mr.. Brown, that this man
should be convicted on such slim evil
dence-circumstantial but not pointed
On the testimony of one man. whose
evidence is questionable for he made
q. gross mistake in his first inspection
Shall this man be ruined on the testi-
mony of that man, or sIznll he have
another CHANGER" At no time was it
shown that he was responsible for the
money or stock. The alleged admission
of guilt to Nichols, when on his way
to plead not guilty, was improbable !
Would such testimony justify sending
man to states PRISON." The circum-
stances accompanying an intent 'were
lacking. What had he done with the
$4,000? At no time was it said that he
had been drinking, gambling or spend /
ing money in dissipation.
JUDGE POWERS ELOQUENCE.
Judge Powers, in supporting the mo-
ton for a new trial, expressed his re-
greet that, owing to his enforced alb 4
Sence during a portion of the trial he
had not been able to do for his client
what he should have done. He had !
been much distressed in this case and /,
desired to do what he could for his
client consonant with justice. The con-
viction of Mcbride depended upon cir /
cumStantial evidence. The verdict had 4
surprised and distressed him. From I
the evidence he could scarcely believe I
that jury would return a verdict I
other than not guilty. The testimony .
of Nichols, the inspector, was unSub- /
stantiated, and without his evidence I
there could have been no Indictment /
His figures We're varying and he was .
self-contradictory, as shown by the /
difference between his first and second /
inspections. Mcbride had proved his I
character. Both he and Barratt were I
men of unimpeachable character. The /
alleged admissions to Nichols, Cunning /
ton and Reventisch were denied by I
Mcbride. Admissions are weak evil /
dence. He asked for a new trial, ow-
ing to the absolute lack of evidence. /
There was nothing to indicate that Nc
Bride had spent money improperly /
about town, and when the wife was on
the stand there was no indication of I
lavishness of dress. If there ever was
a case that appealed to the conscience
of the court it was that of this man.
with his wife and babies.
In conclusion. Judge Powers ex-
pressed his regret that Mcbride had
been unfortunate in the necessary alb
sence from part of the trial of two of
his counsel, Mr.. Williams and himself,
and that Mr.. Brown was not in good
health. and only recovering from Sc
riouS Illness and was not able to pre-
sent the case as ably as when in good
health. He asked what was right and
felt that injustice would be done if the
court passed sentence.
NO REPLY NECESSARY.
Judge Judd was ready to reply to
the arguments advanced, and had his
all piled up and arranged
in front of him. He was not given an
however, for as soon as
Judge Powers had taken his seat
Judge Marshall decided in the district
attorneys favor.
THE COURT SPEAKS.
Judge Marshall, in ruling on the
motion, said that his view of the points
of law in question had not been
by the arguments. The ques-
tons had been passed upon by the SUI
preme court. AS to the evidence be-
fore the jury, the court might use dis
erection, and in case the jury clearly
the evidence it was
the duty of the court to vacate the
verdict But unless such misapprehen-
sion was clearly shown, Difference
cbon1d hA SbOvvn tba ifrr-vr The burden,