Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1920-02-06
EX-GOV. GRAHAM
FOUND GUILTY
CONTINUED from page one)


to do what is believed honestly its
duty in trying the case, unless it wish
ed to merit the proper condemnation
of the people and the criticisms of the
newspapers. 1t has attempted to try
the case faithfully and efficiently" ",
said Mr.. Archibald,
Following the usual morning recess,
Judge Butler started his charge at
1926 o'clock, Henry Bolger of Mid
dlesex being appointed foreman of the
jury. At the outset, after explaining
the oath, Judge Butler warned the
Jury that the case was not one OF ac-
counts with the state, not for the pur-
pose of ascertaining whether or not
Gov Graham had repaid all he owed,
although these figured in determining
the guilt or innocence of the respon-
dent.
"The respondent took money wrong
fully and converted it to his own use.
said the court. "The respondent claims
it was not criminal and the burden is
upon the state to prove, the respondent
being clothed with a presumption OF
innocence which must be overcome by
evidence established beyond reason
able doubt.
Possession of the states money is
not considered a criminal act" con-
tinued the court, unless it is shown
that he is guilty of larceny of these
funds. The respondent claimed he
had another right. other than the stat
utes. This is for you to decide. Inc
crime of larceny is never committed
through innocent mistake" and in this
connection the judge quoted from the
laws as to the duties and rights OF
the auditor.
Frequent reference was made to the
fact that all acts depended on the
intent of the respondent. Judge But
Ter held that the statutes did not give
the auditor the right to draw from
the safes money agains future claims
the states money against future claims
"He is not a disbursing officer and
he had no right to take money from
the treasurer except on a sworn
voucher and for services already rem
dered the state. He had no right as
to the control of the states money
Provided he diverted this money to
his own use. That is, if it was fel-
oniously taken with intent to defraud
the state, or if he obtained money in
advance OF his salary and expenses
with the idea of defrauding the state
he is guilty of larceny. He should
have taken no money until it was due
him"
"On the other hand, if he took the
money without unlawful intent, it was
by error or mistake or if there was a
misapprehension on his part, then nc
larceny was committed. He claims
to have believed he thought he had a
right to so draw this money"
The court then carefully and in con-
siderable detail went over the claims
of the two sides in the case, summar-
lied briefly There is distinction
between trespass and larceny. The
defense claims trespass, admitting that
Mr.. Graham had the money He sup
posed he had the right to so take the
money and he so kept the books
He took the money and used it I'M
Ill called upon to account This prac-
rice he started in 1902 and continued
down to the time he left the Office. The
books were always open and whatever
he did he did innocently
"On the other hand the state claims
he started from the outset with fraud
ulent intent, that he took more and
more money, that he failed to bring
forth the balances showing the amount
due the state until 1918, and it is
claimed that the respondent absolutely
knew he did not have the right to
keep these funds"
In closing, Judge Butler said that
it all reduced itself to the question
of what Gov Graham's intentions
were when he took the money.
After the jury had come into the
court room at $3.50 o'clock, it was nee
essary to delay a few moments until
the ex-governor could get to the court
room from the hotel Judge Fred NJ.
Butler warned the spectators in the
court room at the time to be quiet and
not make any show of approval or dis
approval of the verdict, no matter
what the decision.