The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-09-23
Loring j. Smith Not Guilty
of Embezzlement.
LENGTHY OPINION DELIVERED
Judgment of Common Pleas
Court is Reversed.
Case Against William Massie Is Also
Reversed After He Has Served
About six Months I'm the workhouse
Two Liquor Gases Reversed and the
Owen Company Held Responsible
for Death of Elmer Burch.

After being in session four days
the circuit court made its report at
1880 o'clock Friday evening. Perhaps
the most interesting of the cases ruled
on by this body was that of Loring
j. Smith against the state of Ohio.
Smith was the secretary of the Ohio
Ohio Milling & Elevator company In
1905. He was arrested and indicted
for the embezzlement of $19S, and.
in the common pleas court was found
guilty by a jury and sentenced to two
years by that court. Smith then APP
pealed the case on error and the de-
cision of the circuit court is virtual
victory for him.
Judge Crow read the opinion of the
court. He held that the evidence
showed that Smith was indebted to
the City National bank on four per-
sonal notes. November 8, 1905, Smith
issued a check on the Marion Savings
bank against the checking account of
the Milling company and in favor of
the City National bank, for $19S,
which amount was credited as interest
on the four notes held against Smith.
The evidence also showed that at
the time this check was issued, the
milling company had no actual money
in the Marion Savings bank, but that
the bank had arranged to take care
OF the milling company's checks and
paper. The circuit court held that
Smith never received the money on
the check upon which his indictment
was based. The Smith check passed
through the regular channels and was
paid on November IL, 1905. The evil
Gence showed that the milling com
panys account at the Marion Savings
hank was overdrawn more than $500
when the Smiht check was issued. A,
the close of business on NoyembeI
II, the milling company's account
was more than $1.100 overdrawn.
No Conversion of Money.
The circuit court holds that the
check for s19S was charged to the
milling company and credited L
Smiths account as interest. Smith
re received no money, but certainly ben
Gifted some by the eXtinguishment of
the interest on his notes. But, as
secretary of the company, Smith had
authority to issue checks on the com.
pany. The court holds that Smith
received something OF value by reason
of issuing the check, but asks whethe.
or not that something was money
within the meaning of the Indictment
and the statute.
II is held that inasmuch as the
milling company hao an overdraft at
the bank, there was no actual money
of the company in the bank and 1t
could therefore not lose money. Th a
court asks how embezzlement can be
charged when there was no money
in the bank and Smith received no
money. All Smiths check did was to
augment The overdraft and the COM
rany's Indebtedness to the bank on
the contrary, the milling company
had something like tl,1OO OF the
banks money, But the judgment OF
the circuit court was not based wholly
on the technical grounds explained
above. 1t was also held that the
Metzgar case, in Toledo, was not a
parallel case.
The court found that there was n , |
conversion of money on Smiths part
that there is error in the proceedings
of the lower court and that the YER
ulNl WAS not SuSldlned Dy tne evidence,
The judgment ard verdict were there |
fore set aside and Smith is awarded |
a new trial.
Dry Territory Slang.
In the liquor case of Henry Sauer |
against the state, Judge Donnelly rem
dered the courts decision. Incident |
ally, he remarked that in figuring out |
the evidence 1t was found necessary |
to become familiar with dry territory
slang. He said the evidence showed |
that a friend met Sauer on the streeI
and asked him II he had anything on
his hip" An affirmative answer led
TO the query of whether or not he
would stand for twist" 1t seems
that Sauer would, and then, II Is
charged, he drew a bottle of whisky
from his pocket and gave the friend
a drink. About that time police
man happened along arrested Sauer
" no was held to be guilty, and fined
for a violation of the liquor laws.
The evidence that Sauer actually gave
the second party a drink was very
slim, but the mayor considered II suf-
iicient for a conviction. The mayors
Judgment was affirmed by the com
mon pleas court.
Judge Donnelly held that the state