Evening journal., 1905-05-02
GUILTY
AND SENT TO JAIL
There Were Sensational
Features at Embezzlement
Trial in Dover
BROTHER WAS AGAINST BROTHER
spcclai to Tho Evonme journal.

Special TO The Evening Journal.
Dover. May 2-Emer ]. Abbott.
sageaut-at-arms at the recent special
session OF the Legislature. and mos-
senSer during the regular session, was
convicted and sentenced to six months
Imprisonment for embezzlement, late
yesterday afternoon. after the jury had
been out just half an hour. There were
some sensational features Of the trial.
ono OF these was the appearance
against brother, when james NJ. Abbott.
brother Of the accused was called TO the
witness stand. Another was the divi-
sion Of the count for and against the
defendant. while still another feature
WAS AN attempt to impeach a member
of the bar who had been called to the
stand.
It was shown that while james NJ
Abbott, agent for George r. Pierce, of
Milford manufacturer OF fertilizers,
was IN, his brother, Elmer the accused.
transacted business for him. The charge
was that the accused sold fertilizer
to tanners. for which he accepted notes
In payment afterward cutting them
down. The charge brought against him
by the State was that OF embezzlement
IN the case OF John Loteman. of Ches-
wold Loteman gave his note to ABB
bOtt. the latter later Offering to cancel
the same IL Lotcnan should pay him
the money before the note was due.
thus saving interest. Loteman swore
that he paid it, and showed Abbotts
receipt, while Pierce swore that he had
never received the money and Lote-
man was required to give a new note.
Abbott was defended by james NJ.
Satterheld. legislative attorney, and
fomer State Librarian Cornelius F'rear.
and they fought for the accused vigor-
ously, from the start Abbott s counsel
tried to show that his brother. James
NJ. Abbott. one of the State's witnesses
threw the blame on the defendant in
order TO save himself
BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER.
The defendant tried repeatedly 70
prove that he had paid the Loternan
money to his brother, the state con-
tending. all the while, that ne could
not make "A defense for himself by an
outsider. other than Loteman. the per-
SON who had paid the money, and
Pierce, who was the person for whom
THE money was intended. In this con-
ltention. Justice Spruance sided with the
j defense. but the question was overrlled
by Chief Justice Lore and Judge Boyce.
When, later, Judge Spruance asked a
question, along this line Attorney
General Richards objected TO It.
Judge Spruance still contending. de-
clared that II the Defendant had collect
ed the money ON this note and had
turned il over TO his brother. who was
! Pierce's agent. it was serious matter
iif he could not prove his innocence
THE prosecution and the court con.
tended that if Abbott did collect tn,
money due on the note from Doteman
he should have seen to n that no ON,
but Pierce got the funds.
1t was finally admitted that jaime.
NJ. Abbott had been held before Magis.
trate Wood ON the charge of embez.
element OF $780, the suit being after.
ward discontinued.
LAWYER AGAINST LAWYER.
Lawyer w. NJ. Hope Of Dover, was
called as a witness. and testified thai
Elmer /. Abbott had admitted collect.
ing the money on the notes, and THAT o.,
was going to settle for thom. II was
confronted by James NJ. Satterheld
counsel for Abbott who attempted tC
: impeach him. Attorney Satterfielo
said.
Did you not, In April Of the present
year, while riding on a railroad train
to Philadelphia with me, say that 81
was vengeance you were after in tai.
lease and that you would see that tines,
prosecuting witnesses be held so THAI
they could ge witness fees?"
When Mr.. Hope denied the statement
the cout asked Mr.. Satterfeld why tn,
question was asked, and II he INTENDED
to impeach Mr.. Hope.
Yes" replied Satterield. cor for IN,
purpose of contradiction"
Mr Hope then stated. II did say THAI
this defendant ought to be convicteg
and that we would push these charge,
as these poor people would probably
never get anything but their witness
, fees"
} Because juror was an uncle of on,
of the defendants counsel. the case has
to be started over again. after a new
juror had been found. The deposet
juror was John G. Conneli. uncle o
Lawyer Cornelius Frear. When Mr.
5 Frear returned to the court room. afte
y looking up some matters. he found tn,
; jury drawn. He appealed to the court
stating the matter, and the new jur,
, was drawn. Mr.. Conwell being excused