The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1914-04-02

FOUND GUILTY

As The Recorder Sent to press last
week before the Lottridge case Nas
finished, we refrained from maxi OK
comment upon Ii. but since the jury
has unanimously declared the man
guilty, it Is not cut Of order 10 dis
euss the case as far az was proven hy
tue evidnece. In point OF interest
To home people, it was one OF the
most Important Of tue mauy cases to
come before the court at this ses-
sion. Seldom has the Introduction
OF evidence In a criminal cise been
so bitterly opposed as 1t was in the
trial Of the State vs. Lottridge The
defendant, until recently the cashier
OF the Leadore State Bank, was
charged with embezzlement The
fscts as claimed by the prosecution
are that Lottrldge had an overdiaft
amounting to more than $500, and
wiped out that obligation by false
sn5 fictitious credit to his own ac.
count. The testimony OF the wit
nesses was all one way and clear as
tu this fact, but the additional evil
dence offered, TO the effect that this
overdraft was caused by Lottrldge
having charged himself WI the
amount OF two notes, la the total
amount of 81, 500, which he had pro-
yiously credited twice TO his own ac-
count, was excluded by the court on
the objection OF Lottridge's att r.
neys. 1t was the contention of the
prosecution that Loltridge tad, by
reason OF the duplicate credit of the
amount OF these two notes To his
own account, I'm fact EN- bezzled that
amount, $500. from the bank: and
that when M. McEwan, cashier of
the Utah State National Bank Of
Salt Lake, detected this emhezzle.
ment and laid the matter before tine
Board OF Directors OF the Leadore
ba K. Mr.. Lottridge admitted the
truth Of the duplicate credit and to
offset same charged his own account
slth the amount in question thereby
causing the overdraft which he later
embez1led, eight days after Mr. Nc
Evan had returned 10 Salt Lake.
The defendant relied entirely upon
the legal proposition that since. un-
der The common laS, larceny could
only he committed OF tangible prop
erty, by analogy embekziement could
not he hsd OF an intangible credit.
The contention OF the prosecution
vas, on the other hand. that embez-
element being purely statutory
oifeDse, and the statute having d..
clired the fraudulent appropriation
Of property hy a person to whom il
Is entrusted To he embezzlen.ent, /
then since an overGraft is property,
It's conversion tn his own use by tie !
defendant was violation OF the |
statute. In this view Judge Stew |
ems agreed With the prosecution aud |
let the issues 20 to the jury.
The argument OH both sides was
well presented to the jury. Mr.. Cher
ry, in particular for the State max
inc tue case clear and certain. After
the instructions OF the Court the /
Jury retired and found a verdict OF /
guilty within a very fes minutes.
No verdict OF jury has given
quite such general satisfaction in the /
county as that rendered IN this case.
1t puts Lemhi In line With other
in Idaho that nave
shown their liked d. termination To /
punish bank wreckers and those ~ho .
are responsible for widespread ruin F.
and loss to the industrious.
Ed Note In view OF the posi-
Oiiity that this or some other charge
against this mao may be tried In
This court at a later date and before .
4 Lenhi jury, IL is advisable that
readers refrain from forming convic- .
tions on the slledged facts or on the
quilt or innocence cf the acc ccused,
until the Supreme Court may have /
passed thereon.
THE VALUE OF