Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1916-06-06

| Mrs Dennis to Innes and his wife was
| entrusted TO them to be used for her
| benefit.
This brought Attorney Pettigrew
| down TO the question whether Mrs. Den
mis- gave any money to Innes, and that
Il she did give him money was readily ad-
/ mitted. Attorney Pettigrew said she
/ save lines the money for the simple
! and adequate reason that she was madly
/ in love with him, and wanted him TO
/ have 10. He said there was no stipula-
\ ton that he should use the money for
her benefit or for any other specific
| purpose and there was nothing In the
nature of trust in her giving of the
! money. and therefore the transaction
| could not be a case of larceny or a
| case OF fraud.
In reply to the defense's question
of the venue of the case. Attorney
Reuben r. Arnold. who spoke first on
behalf of the prosecution, cited nu-
ImerOus authorities to show that If Mrs.
dennis received letters in Atlanta from
lines. directing her to send him money.
and that if she sent him money from
here in obedience to these directions,
whether she sent the money by mail.
telegraph or express money order, then
the law would regard lines as having
received the money in Atlanta, since
the telegraph or express company trans
Uniting him the money acted merely as
his agent in the transmission.
Coming down TO the evidence i'm the
case. Attorney Arnold scored lines. and
his wife. numerically. He declared In
mes first got Mrs. Innes i'm love with
him. there formed conspiracy with his
wife TO defraud her of all the money
she could rake and scrape, and proceed
ed to carry out the conspiracy to a
hnish. NO chicken was ever picked
cleaner 10 the bone than they picked
this poor. love-sick woman declared
Attorney Arnold. "No vampire ever bled
its victim more completely" q
The speech of Attorney Arnold was
followed by Solicitor Dorsey, who re-
viewed all the evidence introduced by
the state and pieced together in a very
able manner the details of the states
contention that lines and his wife. after
the former had gotten Mrs. Dennis COM
pletely in his power, conspired to de-
fraud her of all the money she could
realize on the sale of her property and
other belongings.
Judge John s. Gambler concluded for
the defense. He said Mrs. Dennis gave
lines her money because she was in
fatuated with him and wanted him to
have il. Such a thing is bad, he said,
but II is the old, old way of a woman
" AANA sue AONNS a man. NOhAu SlOW
you many a woman in Atlanta today"
declared Judge Gambler. "who is sup
porting a man that never did a lick of
work i'm his life and doesn't know how
Ito do anything but tie a cravat and
dance the tango"
At ESQ Judge Gambler finished his
argument and Judge Hill charged the
jury i'm the following language:
Gentlemen of the jury, you will take
take the law froc counsel on either side
of the case. for in the heat of argu-
ment they are likely to err.
Il need not admonish you that this
is case of larceny after trust. You
are not concerned with any other case
and if you permit statements regarding
any other case to enter into your opinion
you are violating your oath. Victor Z.
Innes alone is on trial, and the indict-f
ment and his plea of not guilty are the
only things you must consider with the
evidence.
This Indictment is in four counts
There is very little substantial difference
between them. hTe law does ont require
in the pleading all the evidence expected
TO be introduced.
This Indictment charges that Victor
E lines was entrusted with money by
Mrs. Dennis for a certain purpose. and
that the defendant converted the money!
to his own use.
There are three facts for the state
TO prOve-a bailment, which is an en-
trusting of money; second, the purpose
of the trust; third, the fraudulent con-
version of any part of the money en-
trusted. The state may prove that Mrs.
Dennis entrusted any part of that mon
ey TO Innes to be invested for her benz
fit, and that he violated that trust by
converting any part of the fund to his
own use.
The state contends that lines and
Mrs. Innes formed a conspiracy and
agreement to get money from Mrs. Dem
mis-. and that in the state of Georgia
they adopted certain plans to carry out
this conspiracy.
IF you believe from the evidence in
the case that they did enter into a con-
spiracy and secured the money from
Mrs. Dennis under fraudulent represent
atoms you will be authorized to find the
man on trial guilty.
eff letters were found stating that
money would be invested by Innes for
Mrs. Dennis benefit and that 'subse-
quently got the money and misappro-
priated IL. you will be authorized in re-
turning a verdict of guilty against him.
IF these letters were found in Full
ton county and if she was moved by
the letters received in Fulton county to
send the money, then the venue can
-be established in this county.
IF you believe that the letters were
written by these defendants in the west
and read by Mrs. Dennis in this county,
and that thte money was scent from
this county in response to the letters
then the. venue is established here.
IF the evidence shows that the de-
PENDANT instructed Mrs. Dennis to send
the money by telegraph and that The
money was sent by telegraph Ii can be
held that the money was received by
the defendant IN Fulton county.
IF you believe that there was a con.
spiracy, then the act of one may be
as the act of both. If either
one of them received the money or mis-
appropriated IL, both would be guilty.
IF you find the defendant guilty on
an one of these counts, on shall speci-
Z i'm our verdict the count under which
you find him guilty, and If you believe