The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-01-19
NO DECISION YET
IN HECHLER CASE
Matter Taken Under Amusement
by Judge Scott After Hearing
Argument.
ruIo oInrN Adm nnrornrrn
TWO SIDES ABLY PRESENTED
Mr.. Fulton Speaks for Treasurer
and MIR. Wendenburg for
County.

Argument in the case OF Treasurer Hen
funds contrary to law. was heard before
Judge r. Carter Scott, OF the Circuit
Court OF Hcnrco, yesterday afternoon.
In n brilliant speech, which lasted over
an hour, and which was closed with a
splendid peroraton, Mr.. Fulton. of the
firm of O'Elaherty & Fulton. spoke for
the defense. and Commemorative Attor-
ney j.. O. Wendenburg, who WAS no less
logical In his conclusions. and who de
clared at the close that he wished 10 say
nothing harsh or unfeeing against the
defendant presented the case for the pros
ecution.
The central point in Mr.. Fulton's
argument WAS that the fund. alleged TO
have been used by Mr. Hechler. belonged
to the estate of the late treasurer, w. j..
Todd There had been no intentioa to
had nothing whatsoever To do with II. 1t
was an individual transaction, man
tanned Mr.. Fulton. and az such could not
he called a part of the county funds. FOR
Mr.. Hechler believed that he was col
lecting Il debt from the estate OF Mr.
Todd. There had ben no intention to
defraud the county or the State. argued
the defense, and no defalcation had been
committed Mr.. Fulton said that II there
had been any defalcation 1t should nave
been discovered before AS 1t was the
duty OF the Board of Supervisors to
examine the books bi-monthly. and lt
is the duty of the Commemorative At
torney to advise the Board of super
yisors. and If this had not been done.
then the whole set of ofhcers should
be turned out of office.
He said also that Mr. Hechler,s report
had been certified by Special Accountant
Boudar, and that the latter had not found
any intent to defraud the county He
argued, then, that there was distincuon
between the county funds and those col
lected by the treasurer from the TOGO
estate, and that with the latter the county
had nothing to do. II there had peeh
mistake in the handling Of the funds, ne
plended in an eloquent strain that the
court would not render an adverse deci-
sion which would brand Hechler as
criminal and defame the fair name oil
himself and his wife and children.
Mr. Wendenburg then took up the arsu-
ment. The commemorative Attorney
said that there had been two fuhds' ths
fiduciary and the individual, ana that
they had been mingled in one common
fund, all Of which had been received py
Mr. Hechler in his official position.
HIe said that Mr. Hechler had taken out
s3.5oo. and that he must be held respon-
sible for the tax tickets from the Iodu
estate. This money was either the luhu
of the county Or State. and did not belong
to the Todd estate. He SAID that ME-
Hechler had taken and spent $4,000, ana
whether it was funds Of the county Or
the State or Of the Todd estate, the treas
lirer had no right to use 1t. MI. Wen
denburg declared that it had been SAID
that there must be proven an intent TO
defraud, but the law held that all such
funds We're sacred, and If they We're lost
or misused, 1T was not necessary to
prove intent to defraud.
In closing he said that he wished to say
nothing harsh against Mr.. IIechler, but
that the latter must have felt he was
doing wrong when he msappropriatcd
the funds rcposed in his care.
Judge Scott asked that he be supplied
with a record OF the evidence and with
a copy OF Mr.. Boudars report, which he
wanted to go over carefully before he
announced his decision, which he will
render probably within n few days.
A large crowd attended the proceedings,
and much interest was manifested IN
the case. which is now the centre of all
attention In the county.