Evening star., 1915-06-18
HENRY MUST FACE
BUT EIGHT COUNTS
Charges Of Larceny After
Trust Disposed of In the
Mrs. BarkIie Case.
NOW TO BE TRIED FOR
EMBEZZLEMEMT ONLY
Defendants Attorney Will Aim to
Show Checks Were Property of
Lewis Johnson & Co.

John William Henry. head OF tho
bankrupt flrm OF Lewis Johnson & 60,
now on trial in Criminal Division be-
fore Justice Siddons, will he called on
TO answer only the counts of the IN
dfctment charging him with embezzle-
ment. The eight charges OF larceny
after trust were disposed OF by elec4
ton by the government under thA
order of the court to stand on the em4
bezzlement count.
The court directed the jury TO dis>
regard the even-numbered counts ~
the Indictment and TO consider hencA-
the charges of embezzlement as sec
forth in the eight odd d-numbe 81
counts.
Former Judge Wright. for the de~
Tense. renewed his motion to instruct
on each of the embezzlement counts
and II was overruled
The lawyer then began a statemenS
TO the Jury outlining the defense. IN
prove there existed no individual
agency between Mrs. Barklie and tha
accused broker. and that the checks
delivered by her to Lewis Johnson -
Co. became the property of the broker-
age firm and could not have been en-
embezzled by Henry He explained
that he expected to show that Henry
was man of known honor and in
~
been brought against him.
Mr.. Wright's Motion Argued.
The morning session of the court was
occupied by an argument on a motion
by former Judge Wright and Attorney
T. NJ Wampler for the defense to re-
Quire the government to elect whether
IT would stand on the charge of en-
oezzlement as set out in the odd num-
bered counts of the Indictment or go TO
the jury on the even-numbered allega-
tons which charge larceny after trust.
Judge Wright pointed out that the
two charges are repugnant and the de
fendant could not possibly be found
guilty of both offenses Because, he
said. to be guilty of embezxlement
Henry must have been the agent of
Mrs. Barklie and il he had been the
agent the larceny after trust charge
could not be predicated on the misap-
preparation Of the checks.
II Henry purchased the stock. the
lawyer suggested. the government must
rely on the larceny after trust counts
and then he should have been indicted
for the larceny Of the stock. as lie
could not have stolen the checks. But
was stated. that no stock was ever pur-
chased, and if that be true the prose
cution must elect the embezzlement
counts
Individual Agency Not Shown.
The defense's answer to this selec-
tion will then be that individual agen-
cy in Henry has not been shown as
the checks were all payable to Lewis
Johnson & Co. and We're deposited in
bank after being indorsed in the name
of the firm. The defense also contends
that the ownership of the checks
passed out Of Mrs Barklie and into the
hrm Of Lewis Johnson & Co. and were
no longer her property, as charged in
the indictment II any embezzlement
occurred. former Judge Wright maiu-
tains. it would have been from Lewis
Johnson & Co. of which firm Mr.. Henry
was a member. and in contemplate tion OF
law there can be no such embezzle
ment.
The defense denies the claim of
agency, and holds that the relation be-
tween Mrs. Barklie and Lewis Johnson
& Co. was one of debtor and creditor
only.
United States Attorney Laskey and
Assistant United States Attorney
Archer opposed the motion to require
an election