Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1909-04-02
DABOVICH EMBEZZLE-
MENT CASE.
Cashier of Suffer Creek Bank on
Trial.

cashier OF the broken Sutter CREEK
State Bank, was commenced in the
superior court Monday. The defend
ant is charged with embezzling sums
confided to his care as an official of
the bank, particularly money paid
for drafts on New York by V. W.
Norton, the drafts being returned to
to the sender dishonored and protest
ed.
There was little trouble in selecting
jury from the regular panel. Early
Monday morning the twelve impartial
men had been secured. They we're :
Harvey Clark. George COPYRIGHT, j.
@. Lima, v. Guiliani, Alex Adams.
Charles Lorentz, j. Ii. Griffin, s.
q. Showers, A. l.. Wait. George Pres
ton, A. q. Hamrick and j. p. Holtz.
The defendant was represented by
W. q. Snyder, assisted by his brother,
j. Z. Snyder, OF Calaveras county.
while district attorney Vicini con-
Quoted the case for the people.
was to introduce the articles of moor
poration of Suffer Creek State Bank.
Then Fred Eudey was called to the
stand. By him it was shown that
the defendant was the cashier of the
bank. As receiver the witness took
charge of the books and assets OF the
honb Tho puipy1to hnnk wQa 0rn-
duced and recognized as that given to
him purporting to be the minutes of
the bank. 1t was offered in evidence,
but ruled out on the objection of the
defense, on the ground that the
proper foundation for its admission
had not been laid, as there was moth
ing to show that the minutes had
been correctly kept.
V. W. Norton, the complaining
witness was then called. He testified
that he was machinest at Knight Il
Co.'S. foundry. and had known the
defendant ever since he was employed
at the Sutter Greek bank. On the
7th of December, 1907. he bought two
drafts from the bank on the Metro
poIitan bank of New York; one for
Sl17.21, and the other for S6S.78.
Gave defendant the money for these
at the bank, and placed the same in
All envelope and forwarded same
directed to the supreme secretary |.
o. T.. at Toronto, Canada. Paid
6Oc for the drafts, which was taken
out of his own personal account at
the bank. About ten days thereafter
received letter to the effect that the
draft had been dishon ored and pro-
| tested. Did you know what had be-
come of this letter. Recognized re-
celpt shown him for 81 30 as the one
he got for the charges for the two
drafts. Got the protested drafts
about two weeks later. These were
produced and identified by the wit
ness, and the one for Sll7.2l was ad =
m tilted in evidence, to the extent of
the face of the draft. After receiving
back the draft, he saw Dabovich
about it, and requested that he give
back the money he had paid tor same.
Defendant told him he need not be
worried about it, that he would be
personally responsible, and that he
would see that he got his money
Thereafter he received telephone
10 essage from defendant to the effect
that bank commissioners Lynch was
in charge of the bank, and he could
not let him have the money, as the
commissioner would not allow it.
Saw him afterwards, and requested
him to give him something in writing
that he would be personally respons-
IDLE for the amounts paid. Defendant
replied, "Cut it out; | don't want to
say any more about it. " Frank
Soracco was present at the time, as
custodian and vice president OF the
bank. Soracco said he was going be-
low shortly, and would stop over at
Niles and see the president, jackson
Dennis, and endeavor to get him to
do something about it. When he got
the drafts be wrote counter check,
at the request OF the defendant,
covering the amounts. as the defend
ant said it gave him less trouble in
keeping the books. Drew a check
for 60 cents on San Francisco bank
tor exchange,
1t was brought out on cross-exam-
nation that one draft for SLOTS pur-
chased at the same time as the draft
for Sl17.2l had been paid. The other
drnft for SGR. 78 WAS honght ON Janu-