The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-10-12

sented the defendant in the trial, asked several times that Solicitor Godfrey des- ignate and elect the particular amount ! and time of the act of alleged emoezzie- ment upon which he was trying corn well and that the solicitor refused 10 elect. I am positive that Captain White called for this election several times dur ing the trial of the case and was refused every time by the solicitor. Captain White also made a motion that the court require the solicitor elect specinc charge and time of charged embezzlement, which was overruled by the court remember very distinctly that Solicitor Godfrey In his argument to the jury insisted that II we found that any amount equal to or exceeding s25 had been embedded from | the Bessemer Savings bank by T. J. Cornwell at any time during three years next preceding the returning or the m dictment we should find him guilty or embezzlement. Captain White opJected to this argument, but was overruled by ! the court"
 On cross-examinaton witness said :: "Onlv one indictment that charging the | embezzlement of $S000, was on trial ana was read before the jury but all the amounts mentioned in the other lndlct- | ments were gone over In the presence l of the jury and testimony was lntroduc- ed with the apparent intention or proving | stood that the entire act of embedding ] s247 900 as a whole was being investigated and when the solicitor refused to select | or elect any particular amount upon | which he desired conviction I understood | that all charges were to be consider ed The solicitor certainly insisted upon 1 the trial of all the charges and refused | to elect what particular indictment ne | desired put on trial.
 Captain White took the stand and made | the following statement:
 | "I was one of the attorneys for the defense In the former trial Of T. J. Corn | well. During the introduction of evi- dence I asked Solicitor Godfrey what l particular sum he would elect In the trlal l of the case Pinkney Scott who was as- | sociated with the solicitor requested the selection of the three items included in the indictment. charging the embezzle- | ment of about $8000 which had been in l troduced at the opening of the case' | but Solicitor Godfrey refused to do this, stating that he had the right to claim conviction on the proven embezzlement | of any amount of $25 or over during three l years next preceding the date of the | returning of the indictments. After the taking of testimony had been closed l moved the court to require the solicitor l to elect the sum which he would
 claim conviction and my motion was :, over-ruled In his argument before the l jury Solicitor Godfrey claimed the right | to claim conviction on any amount em-
 bezzled during three years prior to the l indictment"
 | Captain White Cross-Examined. | Being cross-examined by the solicitor | Captain White said
 q am positive that the solicitor asked 1 for verdict on any sum of $25 or more
 embezzled during three years prior to | the indictment While the three items in- | cluded in the $S000 indictment were two l items of $1500 each and one of $5OOO have | a distinct recollection that another item
 oi a S2500 check drawn on the First Ma
 tonal bank of Birmingham, was men, | toned a number of times In the solici- tors argument to the jury"
 II. D. Keith, another juror who sat on the trial of the former case, was put on | the stand and made in substance the | same statement as Witness Allinger. He | concluded by saying:
 My understanding at the time was that the solicitor argued that we should find a verdict against the defendant on | the embezzlement of any sum from $25 to S247, ,00O the full amount of all the in- dictments."
 H. G. King. another of the former jury, was put on the stand and his tes- timony was in corroboration of the other | witnesses.
 | J. A. LaRue testified as to stenographic notes he had taken on motions and ob- jections tending to show that the solici- tor refused to elect a sum on which he desired conviction. Witnesss notes were
 not complete and were fragmentary
 taken only as directed by the defend- | ants attorneys.
 J. H. Willnams, press correspondent
 corroborated the testimony of the othe
 witness. He stated that Captain Whit
 requested the election of a specific charg
 two or three times during the trial. an'
 was refused each time by the solicitor. Or