Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-03-05
FACTS ABOUT soULE CASE.
State Finds It Can Not Convict on
s Same Charge Twice.

opeCidl TO IuleS-tSepuDilCdH.
Eldora. March 5.-There have beer
so many reports sent to the various
papers, regarding the case pending
against e. o. Soule, which was trans
ferred for trial to Hamilton county
from Hardin county, that the writer
took it upon himself to Investigate for
the purpose of discovering if possible,
what the true situation is.
In the fall of 1903 it was discovered
that Soule, as cashier of the Home
Savings Bank of Iowa Falls. was
defaulter in a sum exceeding $4,000.
At the October term. 1903 several in
dictments We're returned by the Har-
din county grand jury against Mr.
Soule in connection with the embez
element of $4,000. One indictment
Charged him with embezzlement, an
other with larceny by embezzlement,
and another with making false en-
tries in the books of the Home Savings
Bank. The Home Savings Bank was
reimbursed to some extent for the
moneys embezzled. The case charg-
ing Soule with making false entries
was dismissed, as was the case where
in he was charged with embezzle-
0leHI. MI. COuie sSiltIC0 d PiStb W
guilty to the charge of larceny by en-
bezzlement and was sentenced to
term of eighteen months. The longest
term he could have been sentenced
for under that indictment was five
years.
Among other misdeeds of Mr..
Soule was one whereby he sold to a
party by the name of Briggs a mort
gage that belonged to party by the
name of Sherwood which had been
deposited for safe keeping with the
bank while Soule was cashier. 1t oc-
Cured to someone that Mr.. Soule could
be indicted for embezzling this mort
gage. he having appropriated the funds
to his own use. and as a result at the
October term, 1908, another indictment
was found against Mr.. Soule charging
him with embezzlement of this partlc-
ular Sherwood mortgage, and this m
dictment is the one that is now pend
ing in the case against Mr.. Soule IN
the Hamilton district court.
The state has found itself confronted
with this proposition: that no party
can be put upon trial twice for the
same offense. the limit being that you
can put a man in jeopardy but once
for the same crime, and the query
was whether or not this indictment
found in 1905 covered the same Of
tense that the Indictment for embez-
element covered in the indictment
found in 1903. The rule applied to
questions of this kind by the courts
is that the evidence offered to sup
port the indictment in the instant case
has been admissible in support OF the
previous indictment. If SO, then the
indictment charges the party with the
commission of the same offense that
the previous indictment charged. him
with and. as a result ON such show.
ing the court would be obliged to direct
a verdict for the defendant and he
would be discharged from custody.
This being true. the county attorney
of Hardin county found himself in
position where it became necessary IN
order to save Hardin county useless
expense and costs to ask the court
leave to dismiss the proceedings now
pending in Hamilton county.
The action now pending in Hamil-
ton county was brought in good faith
for the purpose of Furnishing Mr..
Soule farther, but circumstances have
turned against the state to such an
extent that a prosecution of the case
would be foolishness, absurd, and a
useless expenditure of the peoples
money. the attorneys claim.
Judge r. NJ. Wright of Fort Dodge.
late Yesterday afternoon dismissed the
Indictment charging E. o. Soule with
embezzlemen. II was dismissed upon
the county attorneys motion. it being
held that Soule had already served
eighteen months in the penitentiary for
this same offense.