The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-07-17
Guilty of Intent to Defraud
Supreme Lodge.
Continued from First Page.l

the money direct. He was treasurer in
1895 and acted about a year, and he did
not remember making any report to the
Sovereign Grand Lodge, nor of signing
ond. lie was treasurer just by general
consent. Judge Womack said he thought
MIR. Jones memory defective and Mr.. w.
c. Douglass remarked that it was a fact
that Mcdonald had never been member
Of the order, had never been initiated or
installed.
Referee f. p. Maynard was here re-
quired bring in the records of the case,
but before these were used Mr.. Jones said
that it was possible he might have signed
some report and forgotten it.
After some further general remarks as
to the conduct of the office by Mcdonald,
Judge PEBBLES finished the writing of the
special verdict and submitted it.
Then the jury returned and the one fea-
utre of the verdict upon which no agree
ment had been reached was presented to
them. The defense said that they did not
wish to introduce any evidence as to this
issue, but would at once go to the jury.
This issue, upon which argument ytas
made, and to which the jury finally return
ed the verdict of guilty, is as follows:
did the defendant appropriate the
funds collected from the members OF Oak
City Lodge No. 419 with the intent to de-
fraud the Supreme Lodge?"
THE ARGUMENT BEGINS.
The defense had the opening and clos
ing. First to speak was Mr.. w. c. Doug
alss, who spoke for Mr.. Mcdonald. In his
opening remarks he declared that the ques-
ton was simply whether Mcdonald had
acted with the intent to defraud the Sow
ereign Grand Lodge, and that it had moth
ing whatever to do with the question OF
of whether he had the intention to defraud
Messrs. Broughton. Bradley, or Whiting.
Mr.. Douglass argued that his reasons
existed why Mr.. Mcdonald had not acted
with the intention to defraud the Supreme
Lodge. The first of these he declared was
that he had before him the fact that the
money he collected did not belong to the
Supreme Lodge. The constitution OF the
order said clearly and explicitly that the
Financial Reporter was the agent OF the
subordinate lodge and the agent OF the
members of the subordinate lodge. In their
constitution they declare Mcdonald is not
their agent, and give no value for the
money received, while they come with this
Indictment and charge that he has embez-
zled money from them. They are glad to
get out the old blood in the concern for
insurance companies live on forfeited poll
cies and want new blood In place of the
old.
As Mcdonald has repaid the members
the money they paid him. which he did not
remit to the Supreme Lodge they have
gotten what they would not get from that
lodge, some return, and the men were not
defrauded. He used the funds, but not
with the purpose to defraud and when he
put it back it showed this He is not
charged with defrauding the members, but
the Supreme Lodge, and these men who
ought to have the money have it. If it
was fraudulent money S. w. Whiting and
Needham Broughton would not have it in
their pockets. Mcdonald has not embez-
zled from the Supreme Lodge, for he was
not the agent of the Supreme Lodge
Mr.. r. N. Simms next spoke for the de-
Tense He said that the question was
whether a defendant charged with the en-
bezzlement of funds from one man could
be found guilty of embezzling from
another man. He held that the money
collected by Mcdonald was not the money
of the Supreme Lodge till it reached that
body and as it never reached it, that Nc
Donald could not have elnbeZzled from it,
that he was not the agent of the Supreme
Lodge and the Indictment charges embez-
element from the Supreme Lodge.
Under this bill of indictment Mr. Simms
argued earnestly that Mcdonald was en-
titled to a verdict of not guilty Of in
tention to defraud or embezzlement, his
contention being that Mcdonald was not
the agent of the Supreme Lodge.
The State was next heard from, Solicitor
Armistead Jones making a strong and Wig
orous argument for a verdict of guilty
against Mcdonald.
The speeches of Messrs Douglass and
Simms he said were remarkable and cur
ious. for Douglass seemed to commend Nc
Donald and Simms rested on the one point
of agency.
1--WE are trying the defendant for embez-
element" said Solicitor Jones, "and you
are to pass upon the question of intent
Did Mcdonald intend to defraud? / hold
that he did. He received notices from the
Supreme Lodge of assessments as an off
GER If he collected and sent the money
TO the IOQge he Was the agent OF the
lodge. no matter what the constitution of
the order says. for the Supreme Court of
North Carolina holds that in such cases
the collector is the agent of the Supreme
Lodge"
Here Mr.. Jones started to read from
1928 n. c.. Bragaw VS.. Supreme Lodge,
Judge Clark's opinion. In this opinion,
relating to a similar case, these are facts
stated that the defense objected to Having
read to the jury so much of the opinion
as recited these facts.
Solicitor Jones insisted that the opinion
could be read, and Judge PEBBLES over
ruled the objection, the defendants ex-
ceoting. But in so doing Judge PEBBLES
evidently felt that the ruling was in
danger from the Supreme court for he
said to Solicitor Jones: IF you want to
give the defendant new trial / think
they will get it, Mr.. Jones said that be
did not think that this would be so.
Then Mr.. Jones having read the opinion,
concluded that Mcdonald was the agent
OF the Supreme Lodge and that his IN
tention was to defraud; that he had col