The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1905-02-11
Logan, Utah, Feb. 18th, 1905.
DIToR OF THE REPUBLICAN,

That IL is evident Jne eulUOT vi lildl
sheet must yet imagine he Is writing
one Of his TYPICAL editorials of the last
campaign, in seeking to cast dis
credit upon Mr.. f. J. Holtion the pre-
sent district attorney.
In an article wherein they discuss
the trial of Herbert II. Carter in the
District Court upon the charge OF en-
beZzlement they seek, 1t seems to me,
to lead the public to believe that Mr..
Holton was overpowered by the
superior ability of the opposing coun-
sci for the defendant by the use of the
following language:
"This action was taken upon mo-
tion Of District Attorney Holton. who
conducted the prosecution, and while
the dismissal was simply an act OF
| Justice, for Carriers entire innocence
was clearly Indicated the general
public will be very apt to attribute 1t
to the fact that Holton was so sorely
! beset by Carter's attorneys, Judge &.
II. Hart and George q. Rich that he
had TO give up.
They simply had Holton cornered
all the time, and occasionally made
the prosecutor appear actually ridicu-
| lous. Holton'S friends say that he
was not WELL and 1t must be admitted
! that he did look sick after the trial
had been IN progress a little while"
The fact is that the information
charging Mr.. Carter with embezzle-
ment was drawn by the former dis
trict attorney and charged Carter
with embezzlng the funds of the
Singer Manufacturing Company while
acting as the agent of the said COM
pany.
The information charged that the
said embezzlement was of money
United States Gold Coin" to the
amount of something like $500. The
case was on the calendar for trial
when Mr.. Holton was elected district
attorney, therefore he was totally
ignorant Of the circumstances sur
rounding the case Or what the evidence
was.
When the case came on for trial he
did not know the names Of half the
witnesses for the State until two
days before the date Of the hearing
and had absolutely no chance to inter-
view them upon what their testimony
would be. He did not even meet the
prosecuting witness, Mr.. Thomas, until
the night before the case was set for
trial, and even then he was assured by
him that the evidence was all at hand
to establish the case of the State in
the form Of witnesses, receipts and
books OF account.
Every one who knows anything
about law at all knows that embeZzle-
ment cases are about the hardest
case, to prove in court for the follow
ing reasons: The State must first
show that the defendant was the
agent or IN the employ of the person
from whom it is charged the embezzle-
ment took place; upon this point Mr.,
Thomas, the prosecuting witness, il
seems to me purposely miSled the dis
tricU attorney, as he claimed to be the
regularly appointed agent and repre-
sentative Of the Singer company in
this State and that his contract with
the company was on file in the office
of the secretary Of the State, and so
testified on the stand on direct exam
nation. Next it must be shown that
the money or goods, as the case may
be, actually came into the possession
of the defendant as such agent. 1t
mist be remembered that in this case
the former district attorney had
charged that IT was money, and that
he feloniously converted the same to
his own use.
The prosecuting witness misled the
district attorney upon the system of
bookkeeping employed by the Singer
company TO such an extent that it was
simply impossible to prove that any
money came into the hands Of the de-
PENDANT except by receipts from differ
ent parties purchasing machines and ne
had no means of showing what was done
with the money, After the trial had
been in progress half day the district
attorney realized that he was up
against game of collision between
the prosecuting witness for the State
or that the said witness was densely
ignorant upon the material points in
volyed in the case and which he had
up to the time Of the trial assumed to
know all about.
For instance, on direct examination
he testified that the slips and receipts
sought to be introduced i'm evidence
10y the district attorney were the only
record or books of account kept by the
Singer company and then on crOSs.eX-
animation said they were only dupli.
Gates and that the originals were in
Denver along with the other books of
account belonging to said company.
1t developed further that the con.
tract authorizing Inomas to act as
agent for the company was nothing