Evening journal., 1909-01-09
KIMBALL CASE
AGAIN in COURT
AttOrney-GeneraI Gray De-
fendS New Indictment
Found by Grand Jury
HIS LAWYERS ASK FOR
DISMISSAL OF ACCUSED

Attorney General Andrew c. Gray.
before General Sessions Court this
morning. defended the states indlct-
ment against James G. Kimball. ON
the charge Of embezzlement of
check for S970.11 from the DUPONT Pow.
der Company. At the June term OF
court last year Kimball. who was an
insurance broker for the DUPONT COM
pany. was indicted on a charge of the
embezzlement of S2410 i'm money from
the company and after the state ia
trial of the case in September had in
troduccd certain testimony against
Kimbal then Attorney General Rich
ards directed the court to instruct the
jury to return a verdict OF not guilty
against Kimball. This was done and
Kim ball released. but before he could
leave tho city kimball was arrested on
second warrant charging him with
the larceny OF the check. II is upon this
charge that the present Indictment IS
based. j. Frank Ball aud William N.
Cooper Jr.. for Himbail. had asked that
the Indictment be quashcd on the
ground that kimball had already been
tried and acquitted of the charge. It
'.~- -"o contention Of counsel for the
defense that the check for SgT011
which kimball IS now charged with
having cmbezzled, was portion of
the S24i0. tho cmbezzlement of which
he was acquitted Of at previous term.
Being one and the same offense Messrs.
Ball and Cooper argued that their
client could not be called upon Sec
Ond time to defend himself
Mr. Gray in opposing the petition of
the defense. contended that the charge
of cmbezzling the check was in no
'y connected with the former charge
n previous term Being one and
the same onense Messrs. Ball and
Cooper argued that their client couid
not be called upon a second time 10
defend himself
Mr. Gray i'm opposing the petition Of
tine defense. .contcnded that the charge
ot cnibezzing the check was M no way
connected with the former charge OF
cmbezzling money. The attorney gem
cral cited that under Kimballs con
tract with the DUPONT Company he was
required 10 deposit all company Checks
% q special account with the Whining
ton Trust Company whereas evidence
produced in tho former trial, Mr.. Gray
argued showed that Kimball had de-
POSTED the eheCk in question: tp,-his
f,eisohsll. -soeeiiri -suith fhr Security
n
ALLEGED violation Or trust. MIR. GRAY
said. constituted an cmbczzlemen,
charge against Kimball and gave tic
state warrant for seeking a secnnd in
dictnent against hi;l. The argument
came up on demurrer filed ny the
State to the defendants petition to
uuash lie indie tmcnt I'm the case.
Replying to Mr.. Gray's argument IN
support of the validity Of the indict.
ment, Mr. Ball contcnded that the fail.
uro OF the State to prove in the former
trial that Kimball had appropriated tc
his own use the money represented by
the check could not be used at this time
against the defendant.
Mr.. Ball argued further thsf there
could be no embezzlement Of the checl
in question by Kimball because the checl
was made payable to himself.
The caurt held the matter under ad.
Visement.
In court yesterday afternoon Harry W
Fcrricr was acquitted of charge OF pass
ing a worthless check and was discharged
Armon u. Chaytor. Jr was assigned t,
represent Stanislaw WierzbowslSi. indicte,
for manslaughter and through his attor
ney yesterday afternoon entered a pie,
Of not guilty. Tho young man is allege,
to have killed a fellow countryman at tn
plant of the New CaV'e Leather Work
by a blow from his nst
Frederick Surrok entered plea OF no
guilty 10 an indictment charging assaul
with intent to commit rape. II is under
stood that Surrick will he tried an
charge of common assault He was re
leased on 500 bail pending hearing mex
week