Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1909-04-02

cution rested, to the amazement of
everyone present
A short adjournment was then taken
to enable the defense to frame
motion. Upon reassemb bling j. p.
Snyder moved the court to instruct
the jury TO acquit the defendant on
the ground that the prosecution had
utterly, failed to make out a prima
facie case. 1t was argued that there
was no evidence to show that the de-
PENDANT had appropriated any money
for his own benefit, that the sums
alleged to have been embezzIed we're
the property of the Sutter Creek
State Bank, and not of the complain
ing witness; that the defendant issued
the draft in the usual and ordinary
transaction of banking business.
The motion was temporarily denied.
until the evidence for the defense was
submitted, when 1t might be renewed.
At the reassembling of the court
Tuesday after the noon recess, the
defense called r. N. Soracco. He
said that in the conversation with
Norton, after the closing of the bank,
when Norton wanted defendant to
give him something in writing to
show that he, defendant, would be
personally responsible for the pro-
tested drafts, that Dabovich told him
he could not do so, and did not say,
"cut it out"
The defense offered no further
testimony.
Counsel for defendant renewed the
motion for the court TO instruct the
jury to acquit on the ground that
there was no evidence to warrant a
conviction. The point was raised
that the money involved in the al
legged EN- bezzlement was the property
of the bank, and not of the COM
planning witness. Upon this point
the court took recess until 3
O'Clock, to enable both sides to look
up authorities in support of their
respective contentious. At four
O'Clock the court excused the jury
until the following morning, to give
further time to look up authorities
bearing upon this knotty problem.
On Wednesday morning after
auth critics had been looked into
the court denied the motion for "a
instruction to acquit. and held that
1t was matter tor the jury.
The defense called V. w. Norton,
who said there no was difference in
the way he secured the drafts on the
7th Decem Der, 1907, than the method
in previous instances. He paid the
money to his personal account and
drew checks against same for the
several amounts. lie was secretary
of the independent Order of Foresters,
and of the Maccabees, aud the drafts
we're payable to those orders.
Peter Daborvich, defendant, was
witness in his own behalf. He had
been resident of Suffer Greek for
the past six years, and resident of
Amador county all his life. He was
cashier and secretary of the Sutter
Creek State bank. he said the
money of the complaining witness Oh
the 7th of December was paid into
the bank and the drafts issued were
in usual course of the banking bust
ness. He issued the drafts as cashier,
and the money deposited went into
had one account in the bank in his
own name. A page of the bank
ledger was shown containing the &C
count with V. W. Norton, and the
entry crediting his account with the
sums deposited on that day, two tags,
one for S33. 90, the other for Sl68.2U
making a total of S201. Az. Never
appropriated any of the money to his
own use. Did not know what the
drafts were for. Nj Norton was in
the habit of coming with money to
portion in drafts 10 facilitate
matters he told him to make out de-
posit tags for the amount, and to
draw his check for the amounts want
ed payable to "self," meaning Nor
ton. BY Misunderstanding the
checks were drawn III favor of z.
Dabovich, but he never Endorsed the
same or drew money for them.
Did not know at the time that there
was not sufficient money to the credit
of the Sutter bank in the Metro
nnlllnn hank To menE tie drnfts