Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-06-23
GETS TWENTY YEARS
Sentence Is Imposed on
J. Barton Miller.
NOTICE OF APPEAL MADE
Pending Higher Courts Action,
Bond of $4,000 Is Given.
ARGUE JURORS COMPETENCY
Plea for New Trial-Term May Be
Shortened If Books Are
Returned.
NOTICE OF APPEAL MADE
ARGUE JURORS COMPETENCY

Twenty years in the penitentiary. the
Identical sentence imposed last year on
John Barton Miller, former secretary
treasurer of the First Cooperative Build
ing Association of Georgetown. convicted
on two counts of embeZzling funds of
the association. was given Miller today
by Justice Wright in Criminal Court No.
/, after he had overruled motion OF
the defendant 10 grant him a new trial.
On the indictment charging the de-
struction of the books of the association.
Justice Wright deferred sentence until
further order. He intimated strongly to
Miller that If the latter would return
the books and thereby restore the in
formation as to the condition of the as
substantial reduction in the sentence i'm
posed on the embezzlement charge would
be made.
Miller noted an appeal from the SEN
| tence in the embezzlement case and gave
bail in the sum of $4,000. pending the
decision of the appellate court. George
w Ray qualified as surety.
In arguing a motion for the new trial,
Attorneys Henry +. Davis and John +.
Laskey read TO the court numerous au-
thorities holding that a relative of a
stockholder in corporation the funds
of which had been embezz1ed by the de-
fendant was biased and disqualified at
common law to sit as juror. They con-
tended that inasmuch as Juror John f.
Libbey. jr.. was the son of a stockholder
in the First Cooperative Building Asso-
citation of Georgetown, the court had
| in the case.
Justice Wright disposed Of this point
by stating that Libbey's father had been
dead more than three years before Lib
hey was accepted and the knowledge of
this was in the possession OF the de-
fendant when Libbey was examined.
Challenge Was General.
The fact that Miller knew the father of
Juror Libbey was dead and that the chal-
lenge to the qualification of the juror was
in general terms and did not suggest to
the attention of the court the particular
ground of challenge, the court said. nulli-
fed the point made by the defense that
the juror might have been incompetent.
The court pointed out that the eXamina-
ton of the juror disclosed that several
grounds of challenge might have been in
mind of counsel when the challenge was
made.
Counsel for defense urged that a read
ing of the act regarding the destruction
of the books showed plainly that without
importing words into it the crime could
Only De cOTlfnltteO Wnen tDe WTltlnS ue-
stroyed might tend to prejudice or alter
the interest OF another, and not the TAX
ing away or destruction OF the books.
Nothing to Say.
When asked IL he had anything to say
before sentence. Miller calmly responded
Nothing. your honor
Justice Wright then pointed out that
the extreme penalty of the law might
seem inconsistent when compared with
the amount of money which Miller was
convicted of taking, but a consideration
of the former officiars action, he said. in
destroying the records affecting the in
terests of so many persons in an attempt
to cover up his crime clarified the situa-
ton
The court stated that in view of the
circumstances, the case called for SEN
tence of ten years on each count.
IF Miller had seen fit, continued JUS
tce Wright. Ito disclose the books and
thereby restore the records of the asso-
citation. a substantial diminution of SEN
tence would have been made. If he sees
fit to do so in the future, this suggestion
is commended to his consideration.