The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1915-11-08

SOkAV8nyt o8o400S t00 U0404S<4AAAe9 Ss10
estate 81 Louisa r. Bentlaks, deceased.
for the sum Of $S.374.30.
Said claim alleges that said sum rep
resents money had and received by
said Louise r. Bentla4e from said H.
c. Hassmeier company on the various
dates set forth therein. covering the
to August nth. 1914. inclusive.
Said claim further alleges that said
entire amount Of money was had and
received by said Louise F. Bentlage.
during her lifetime, for the use and
benefit Of said H. C. Hasemeier Com
pAny and that said Louise F. Bentlage
unlawfully appropriated the same to
herself while she was in the employ Of
said plaintiff company. as it's cashier
and book.keeper
That payment of said amount was
demanded Of the administrator by said
claimant, before the filing of this
claim, and payment by said admins
trat was refused.
The burden Of proving all the ma
terial allegations of this complaint is
upon the plaintiff at all times.
The nature of this action is such
that 1t charges the commission Of the
crime of embezzlement on the part of
the deceased Louise F.. Bentlage, and
this is one of the material allegations
of the complaint. Therefore, before the
plaintiff can recover, all the material
allegations of the complaint, with re-
spect to part or all of the money
referred to In the complaint must have
been proven by preponderance of all
the evidence; and as the complaint
charges the commission of a crime on
the part of the decedent, such evidence
as q whole must preponderate in such
a degree, as that it overthrows and
outweighs the presumption of inno-
ccnce; for the law presumes that the
said Louise F. Bent,age is innocent of
such alleged crime until said presump-
ton is overthrow by preponderance
OF III the evidence. BY q preponder
aCce CT the evidence is meant the
greater weight there of. You will have
the complaint with you in the jury
Icnm to "cad fer yourselves.
Tho defe dant denies that said
Louise +. .lage received the mon
ey referred to in the complaint. or any
Tart thereof, ard that the same ever
came into her exclusive possession,
and defendant further denies that said
decedent Incorporated the same, or
any rat thereof.
The preporderance of the evidence
must show. therefore. that the money
or some rGrt thereof, actually came in
to the possession Of said decedent, and
that she failed to account for and pay
over the same. If it is not shown, by
prep Cnde.cnec of the evidence. that
said mercy or some part thereof &C.
traly came into her possession, then
there would BIO no burden resting upon
defendant to account for the same, but
if preDonderance OF all the evidence
shows that said Louise F. Bentlage, as
the cashier and bookkeeper of plhintiff
during the time referred to in the COM
Paint, actually came into possession
OF the money of PLAINTIFF or some part
thereof. as referred to in the CON-
plant, and that she failed to account
for Or pay over the same, then 1t
would be the duty of this defendant to
account for the same. and in the alb
sence of such accounting the plaintiff
would be entitled to verdict at your
hands for such sum so unaccounted
for.
Whether or not said decedent &C
tually received the money referred to
in the complaint, or any part thereof,
Or whether she misappropriated the
same, are facts which are to be deter
mined by the jury from a considera-
ton of all the evidence.
In determining such facts it Is prop
Ell for you to consider the manner in
which said funds were kept. and
whether or not persons, other than
Louisa +. Bentlage. had access to or
control of said sums of money. Also
the financial condition of said dece-
dent at the time of her death, her
manner of living and her financial
condition, as shown by the evidence
during the time referred to in the
complaint. In this regard you may also
consider the fact, If It be a fact, that
decedent took her own life; the fact,
If 1t be fact. that she purposely made
false or double entries in the account
books of plaintiff. as a part of her du-
ties as such cashier and bookkeeper;
whether or not she made any willful
misrepresentation or failed to prop
erly represent to any officer or stock
holder of the plaintiff as to the con-
tents of such books, or as to any mat
ter within the scope of her duties as
such cashier and bookkeeper; you
may also CONSIDER any letter or writ
ten statement she may have written
to any officer or stakeholder of said
plaintiff company concerning matters
within the scope of her said duties,
and whether such statements are
truthful or untruthful.
And If, from a consideration of these
things. together with all the other ev-
idence in the cause, you find that said
decedent as such cashier and book
keeper did receive the money referred
to In the complaint, or any part there
of. and failed to account therefor, and
failed to turn the same over to plain
tiff but appropriated the same to her
own use. your verdict should be for
the plaintiff for such sum so appropri-
ated. even though the evidence may not
show what she did with this money,
after said money was SO appropriated
by her. II you find it was so appro-
priated by her. But unless you find
that she did actually receive said mon
ey or some part thereof and failed to
account for or turn the same over
to the proper owner, your verdict
should be for the defendant
Evidence of mere irregularities. or
discrepancies, or shortages in entries,