The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-07-06


Indictment.
Judge Lewis yesterday In the district
court directed verdict for the defendant
in the case of the state versus Deputy
County Treasurer Andrew P. Swanstrom,
charged with grand larceny in connec-
ton with the defunct Order of Mime
haha, of which he was supreme secretary
and treasurer. The defendants eyes
filled with tears as the court reviewed
the circumstances of the case in ruling
on motion for the direction of a YER
dict. He was Immediately surrounded
by his friends, who were anxious to ex-
tend their congratulations, but first he
shook hands warmly with his attorneys,
w. HI. Mcdonald, T. .McDermott and
John H. Ives.
ut ought never to have been tried
said Mr.. Swanstrom impressively.
There are two other indictments
standing against Swanstrom, one of
which was found for the purpose of
correcting an error in the first bill, and
the other for perjury in making a false
return of the condition Of the company
to the insurance commissioner His
counsel urged that the perjury indict-
ment be Immediately disposed of, but
the court ruled that the matter must go
over until the October term
In his review Of the case in addressing
the jury the court said:
The state charges this defendant with
the crime of grand larceny Under the
law in this state person who, as an
officer or servant of corporation, re-
ce1ves the money or funds o. the cor
poration, in discharging the duties Of MS
office, and appropriates the money to mis-
own use, with the intent to deprive tho
corporation of the benefit of that money,
steals the money and is guilty of larceny.
me state in this case has charged this
defendant with having stolen under such
circumstances some $500 from the Order
of Minnehaha
On the trial thus far in the case the
state has offered evidence tending to
show that this defendant received some
seventy dollars, which does not appear to
have been entered upon the books. For
the purposes of this motion it must be
admitted that the defendant, at the time
OF receiving this money, was the acting
secretary and treasurer of the Order OF
Minnehaha. 1t is the claim of the de-
feuse that at this time this CIDER of
Minnehaha is owing the defendant some
$5V0 for back salary, which -las not vet
been paid. 1t appears in evidence that
on or about the first day of November,
1897, the Order of the Minnehaha passed
a resolution wherein they accepted the
resignation Of this man from the office
of secretary and treasurer, and acknowl-
edged an Indebtedness to this defendant
of some $500 for services. 1t also appears
that subsequent to that time this de,
PENDANT continued to act as acting
secretary and treasurer of the corpora
ton; and for the purposes of this mo-
ton 1t must be admitted that he was
secretary and treasurer. of this corpora
ton. 1t also appears that subsequent
to that time and about the LIST of Janu-
airy. this defendant made an affidavit
to the state insurance commissioner, in
connection with Mr. Ginner, wherein he
said that the corporation owed nothing
to its employees on account of SALARY; and
by reason of this affidavit subsequent to
the passing of the resolution, wherein
the institution admitted that it owed
him S525 or $500, or whatever the amount
iS,=for the purposes of this motion the
court will hold at this time the Order
of ;Minnehaha was not owing this de-
PENDANT anything whatever on account Of
salary.
That brings us to the question whether
VI -llOI- Il DSTSOll dcIlI1S as secretary and
treasurer of corporation, as this man
was at the time he received this money
this money having lawfully been. paid
into his hands as secretary and treasurer
whether or not the simple showing that
ne received the money under those cir
cumstances is a sufficient showing that
he has converted and appropriated X to
his own use, with~ the intention of steal
ing 1t from the Order of Minnehaha
In DC
by the state that while he received some
seventy-odd dollars, which do not appear
to be entered upon the books, the state
has also shown that this man reported
to Mr.. Ginner that he had received some
$4S and asked that it be charged to his
account, leaving a balance of some $22
perhaps, which is entirely unaccounted
for, so far as the purposes of this mo-
ton are concerned, except it appears by
Mr.. Ginner that other memoranda were
left upon his desk, showing certain col
leCtiOns, the amounts of which he does
not remember. So the question comes
down to this point, whether or not the
mere receiving Of money by a person
authorized to receive it, and his neglect
to enter the same upon the books of the
company, it being shown at this time that
Mr.. Ginner himself made all the entries
in all those books subsequent to the 1st
of January, 1885, and it being shown that
Ginner made all the entries in those
books at the time when it was claimed
that this man received this money
whether that can be considered as an APP
preparation of the funds to the use of this
man who received the money, to such an
extent that he may be held as having
stolen it. 1t is true the state has shown
that this man, with Ginner, had access
to the books and that either of them
could have made the entries in the
as a fact that Ginner did make the en-
tries in the books whatever entries We're
made, and the question in this case is
this: Whether or not this man., having
lawfully received this money and re-
ceipted for it-whether or not his failure
to insist that it be entered in the books
is a sufficient proof that he took this
money and appropriated it and used it
for his own benefit, with the intent of
depriving the Order of Minnehaha of its
benefit or use.
The court is convinced that there is no
proof here which would sustain verdict
that this defendant was guilty of the
crime charged. If there is any proof that
would sustain a verdict, it is the duty of
the court to submit the case to the jury;
if there is no such proof it is equally the
duty of the court to take the case away
from the jury. The court is firmly con-
WINGED that there is no question which
can properly be submitted to the jury
upon the facts in this case. The mere
fact that the defendant failed to make
entries in a book, in the absence of any
showing that he used the money for his
own purposes. is not proof that he in
tended to convert this property to his
own use, and did convert 1t to his own
use.
Under these circumstances, gentlemen
of the jury, it becomes my duty to direct
you at this time to return a verdict of