The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1915-11-08
JUDGE SPARKS TELLS
JURORS HOW To WEIGH
EVIDENCE PRESENTED

further and show that said decedent
actually received this money or some
part thereof, and failed to account I
for or to turn the same over. But In |
determining these facts It II proper |!
for you to consider such Irregularities, |
and discrepancies and book shortages,
II such appear, and also the fact, II 1t
be q fact. that decedent took her own
life and II from consideration Of all
the evidence you find that decedont
was during the time complained of
the cashier and bookkeeper Of plain
tiff, and that as such she had exclu
sive control OF plaintiffs account
books; that she received and disburs-
ed moneys for plaintiff In its business
during said time: and It It appears
from the entries made by decedent In
employment that there was an excess
of receipts of plaintiffs money which
came to her hands, IL you. find it did
actually come to her hands, over the
disbursements made by her in its
business, which was not accounted for
upon the said books, and which was
not turned over by her to the plaintiff,
the law calls on her, or her represen-
tative, to explain what became of such
money.
Evidence may be either direct or
circumstantial and while it is true
that to entitle plaintiff to recover, a
preponderance of all the evidence
must show that the money referred to
in the complaint, or some part thereof,
has been lost to the plaintiff, and that
decedent took and appropriated the
same, yet these facts need not be prov
en- by direct evidence, but they may
be proven by circumstantial evidence.
1t is not necessary that it be shown
that decedent was actually seen to
take and appropriate the money in
question, or that she confessed to hav-
ing done so.
Direct evidence of a particular fact
or circumstance which forms a subject
OF judicial investigation. Circumstan-
tfal evidence is evidence OF other or
collateral facts and circumstances
from which the particular fact, which
forms the subject of judicial investf-
cation, is, or may be, inferred. Cir
cumstantial evidence alone is sufici-
ent to support a verdict for plaintiff,
providing such circumstances suffici-
emily strong, when taken into consid
Grafton with all the other evidence in
the cause, including the presumption
of decedents innocence, to constitute
a preponderance of all the evidence.
No greater degree Of certainty. how
ever, is required where the evidence
is circumstantial than where it Is d.
rect, for in each case, to warrant a
verdict for plaintiff, the jury must find
that all the material allegations of the
complaint have been proven by a pre-
ponderance of all the evidence.
If you find that the decedent, Louisa
F.. Bentlage, wrongfully took and ap-
propriated to her own use any of the
money of the plaintiff corporation Of
H. G.. Hasemeier Company which came
into her hands as its bookkeeper and
cashier, during the time referred to in
the complaint, the fact that any Off
Ger and stakeholder of the corporation
overdrew either his dividend or his
salary account; If in truth such with
drawal occurred, would in law be no
justification to the said Louise F.
Bentlage for such wrongful taking and
appropriation upon her part.
Likewise whether the plaintiff cor.
poration was solvent or insolvent orl
whether 1t made or lost money in it's
business, would be no lawful justific-
ton for the wrongful taking and ap-
preparation by Louise F. Bentlage of
the money of the corporation which
came into her hands as its bookkeep-
er and cashier, If as matter Of fact,
the said Louise F. Bentlage did wrong
fully take and appropriate such money
to her own use and purpose.
The defense has introduced evide6ce
for the purpose of proving that prior
to the 18th day of August, 1914, the
reputation of the decedent Louisa F.
BentIage for honesty was good, and
this fact is admitted by plaintiff.
The law presumes that one whose
character for honesty is good is less
likely to do and commit the acts al
legged in the complaint than one
whose character in those respects is
bad.
1t is therefore proper that you
should consider this evidence in con-
nection with all the other evidence in
the cause in determining whether
or not the said Louisa f. Bentlage did
and committed the acts as alleged In
the complaint, and you should give
this evidence such weight for that
purpose, as you think it Is entitled to
receive; and, II after considering all
that of good character, together with
the presumption of innocence which
the law presumes on the part of Lou
Use F. Bentlage, you find that all the
material allegations of the complaint
have not been proven by preponder-
ance of all the evidence, you should
find for the defendant.
But good character does not license
the commission of crime, and II after
considering all the evidence in this
cause including that of good character,
together with the presumtions of in
nocence, you find that, all the material
allegations of said complaint have
been proven by = preponderance of the
evidence, then your verdict should be
for the plaintiff.
If you find for the plaintiff you will
award it such damages as in your
judgment, q preponderance' of the evil
dence shows 1t to have sustained by
reason of the acts complained of.
If you find for the defendant, SO say
by your verdict.
You are the exclusive judges Of the
weight Of the evidence, and the credi.