The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-06
DIAMONDS. 81 4!
Tho tremendous diamond trltde 8 ef
tho Schwarzschild store Is die to tho.
high quality of their goods and Iiaw-i
ness OF prices tN iiss MI 54tj "A
Let us show thcm to you. I. ,S
sCIIwARzsCHILD mos,
lH.t jewelers.. ;3Ss s@fs
Second and Rruad streets is VIA
DIAMONDS,

Lee arGned that 1t was nocpssary foNs
tho prosecution to provo that the cn-vy
try mado by Mr.. Bishop was faiso,s
without regard TO the transactions
which led up to IT, Commemorative
Attorney Mann argued briefly that Tho
adjective was not necessarily vital .stoT
the Indictment, but was rather dos 4
scriptivc as pointing out n specific act.S
Both lawyers argued largely along
technical lines. abstruso to the lay
mind. i!gs
Then. rs IL hn had dcllberated long
and carefull:r weighed every point un-S4.
der consideration. Judge Mullen rem
dered his opinion verbally
Upon tho objection of the defend
ant" he said. ITO the introduction or
collateral matters to show Intent and
motive on the part of the defendant
upon tho ground that tho offensuS
charged In the Indictment has not
hcen proved. the court holds that, IFS
under tho indictment. tho Common
wealth was not required to show THAI
the entry complained of was falsns
entry. that being the allegation of tho
Indictment. 1t would havo no hesita-s
ton In striking out tho word falsely
wherein 1t is charged the defendants
fclonlously. falsely. etc. committed
the offenso as surplusaGe; but whora
1t describes the word entry wherever
usch III liz ll'tiCtHlSHtt Us Il ldiSO en-iy
try, it was, Ina smuch as the statute
does not reqnro It to be 80
characterized charging an offense not
contemplated by the statute (scctionl
1870 of the Code of Virginial, and waa5
a defect. not In form, but in sub
stance. il being we'll settled that STAT!
utory offenses must be set out liz tha
Indictment III the language of tho.
statute. or in words of similar Import
of
was that. under tho indictment, tho
Common wealth was required to show
that the entry complained of was n
false entry. The court then went on
TO define what constitutes a false en-
try. holding that II represents All, ac-
tual transaction and not a sham ori
fictitious one. having no real exists
ence. IF. therefore," the court cons
tinued "as the evidence clearly shows
tho note the proceeds of which wero
placed to the credit of Davis on hiHS
account with the bank was actually.
discounted BY the cashier and SO
shown upon the ledgers and books Of
The bank, then this was an actual
transaction. although the cashier may!
haVo had no authority to make tho
discount. The entry upon the books,
recorded nm actual transaction. and
therefore. WAS not a false entry AS
The court cited several authorities
III support OF tnlS ruling and In CON-
tradistinction to the Morse case. in
which It was held the transaction
complained OF was a sham and had no
actual existence, purporting to have
been loan on a note with cola teralI
attached, which collatcrals were at tho
time. and SO known to Morse, tho
property of the bankl
The whole proceedings to-day occu-t
pied not much more than an hour AZ;
few from large gallery OF specta-
tors stepped forward to shake hands
with Mr.. Bishop. apparently being un-;
der the impression that this trial end z
cd the whole affair But the prosecu-
ton Is Just beginning, and the end Ia
not yet. 3is I1, M -.