n Cium .e..The regutlar Novem
terh bf tilh faihold Court of
or4 $ iol% opened on Mondag
first 'inet a*t, at, half past twelve
>ek. Judge Mackey appoared in
working trim, apparently To
red from his sickness of Wat
mer. Court having ben ;alldd,
D. R. reaster was appointed
man of the Grand Jury, and the
rt then delivered the openin
go. The court stated that it
unnoccessary to charge them as
heir regular duties. but there was
y, matter to which he desired par
-n arly to call their attention. This
ter was the buying of seed cot
at night by owners of eountry
' N. Complaint has reiche-l the
s of the court fronm all quarters
t Cotton is stolen, the property of
more of both races, for thieves
a class make no distinction on
ount of race color or previous
ndition of ser vitude.
The court has been petitioned to
dross this great wrong. It is the
eat of the court that, it is able to
trnish to every citizen the protee
on guaranteed to him by law.
The cotton crop is the basis of all
he prosperity of the peoplo of the
outh, especially to the laboring
lassos, as anything tending to
diminish the crop diininihe's the
wages, and it is to the interest of
every poor man to have w4g,,high
,d provisions cheap. When- taxes
are high wages must diminish: Now
this wholesale stealing of cotton" in
an.enormous tax, and for this a
remedy must be found. While it is
the belief of the court, founded on
observation and research that the
laboring classes of the South steal
less thin the laboring classes of any
other nationality, still it is also a
fact, that the white property holders
of this region can stand less utealing
than property hol lors anywhere else
can. F or after paying expenses of
ealtivation, enhanced bya lien system
the not profits to farmers are three
per cent, and this allows no margin
It is apparent that be)iind every
body of cotton thieves there is an
impelling force,-the white man who'
buys the cotton. The buyer gets
by far the greatest proportion of th's
proceeds of this crime, because his
race always achieves in any pursitt
a greater success than any others,
*and when a white man becomes 'a
tie'f he is able to jrfl. niuch
as three colored mencanr..:
'Thes country storm.are a great
~evil because they arti protected by
law. But men may prosecute a law
lul business in such ii'iuhidr -as to
* ',V nake it a nuisance. And thjese
$stores shall be considered as nui
sances and treated ad such. It is
- ' impossible almost td diserinijinate
between those store owners who
Acarry on a lawful business and those
*.who do not. It shall therefore be
deemed a nuisance hiereafter where
any cotton is p)urelhased at night,
whether from the lawful owner or
otherwise. By this'pi-esant system
of purchasing stolen eatton, thieves
realize so little from their ill gotten
gains that they repeat the offence,
and occasion still greater loss to the
farmer. The court here hlluded to
Anderson Whitner the nhampion cot
ton thief of Chester, wvho is now in
the penitentiary, who on one oc
casion carried a large and heavy bas
- ket of cotton to a store, and having
been compelled to run under the
bed by the arrival of a visitor, found
upon emerging from his hiding
place that his hundred and fifty
p ounds of cotton had dwindled
Sdown to twenty-five p~ounds, anafor
1this he received twp.cents a ggund.
* ven thieves cannot keep up this
traffic at such ruinous rates. In
order to break up this trafic, the
grand jury are horeby chargel to
find a true bill as for a nuisance
against any person .proven to have
bought cotton at night. The only
exception will be in those cam;' in
which the sellers have no time during
the day in which to trafici, and this
* fact must appear in a reg ular en try
made on the hooks of the store.
* And storekeepers can be indicted
for purchasing after nigh/t from
bonafdce owners, only when itca
be shown that these owners had no
time during the day
In this connection the court at
tributed much of flic'it traffic going
on to the insuffe'ency of rations. A
peck of meal and three poundls o
meat a week will not suipport a
laborer with a large family. And it
au cli cases the engoyee must mak<
tnore liberal terms.
In eonclusion th& dourti0xpressed
to-reradiness to mnaki r test case ol
* ny intance fo buying cotfon al
ni~aghtbeitg reported to hima. If th4
*uI noe beco4ditiued th t~oa
beL movef, and4Itled noto llb
&d01cesion made br the
4 1utheIghteen 'ears ago iz
8 o'c16k, P. .i. During, the ifter
heon session, the following 'cases
were disposed of :
State vs. Dennis Robertson--as
sault with intent to kill, and assault
ago battery on Love Reddick-Gailt
lard and Davie for the' defence, ver
diet, not guilty, the jury believing
that an attack had'been made on the
defendant by Love Reddick and
State vs. Jacob Johnson-Petit
Larceny, stealing corn from Mr.
P. R. Mayo, Gaillard & Davis for the
defence. It appearing that the corn
! was owned partly 'by the defendakt,
-the court directed a verdict of not
guilty, on the ground that the
offence was a trespass and not a
Court then adjourned till Tuesday
On Tuesday the first case tried
w.as'the State .vs. John Williams
alia Henry Bacot-horse stealing.
The prisoner, last week, stole Mr.
George R. Robertson's horse in
W innsboro, and rode him to. Colum.
bia where he offered him for sale.
He was apprehended and the horse
recovered. The prisoner plead guil..
ty, and was sentenced to nine months
hard labor in the Penitentiai y, the
court giving as a reason for the
lightnggs of the punishment, the
fiat-thatr the. prisoner was a very
young man, tind this was his first of
fehce,- and the horse had been recov
f e c(T.
The State vs: Elias Cook---petit
liiroiy-stealing a hog from Mr.
Iloseph - McMeekin. Mr. Davis for
the defence. The State not making
out a case, the court directed the
jury to find a verdict of not guilty.
The Trid Justices were ordered to
be more careful in sending up cases
to the higher court.
State vs. Adam Cook--assault
with intent to kll, and assault and
battery, J. Glenn McCants for the
defence. This was quite an interest
ing case. The prosecutor was Calvin.
Douglass. The testimony was very
conflicting. Witnesses for the State
testified that Cook assaulted Doug
lass, who stabbed . him in the back
and side, and ran away, but was
overtaken by Wood anti shot in the
bowels. ' Wood's witnesses. swear
that he charged Douglass with steal
ing watermelons from hin, where
upon Donglass and seve'ral others as
saulted him, stabbed him, and stoned :
him, leaving him for dead. That he!
revived and started home, and was,
~gain assaulted anid fired in self
defence. The case was ably defend
ed by Mr.' McCau~ty, who made his:
debut in the court house on thlis cc
bastion1. Both in" his examination
and in hiq-speech he acquitted him
self quite handsomely. The mass of V
the testimony favbl'ed tile State. Tile
jnry4, however failed to ngree, and
after seve at hours confinement were'
State vs. Augustine Vanfield and
William Lyles--malicious mischief.
Messrs. Obear and Davis for the
defence. It appears that 1s'. Glad
ney Martin's cattle entered -the do
fondants' fields onen or twice, whlere-:
upon thle defendants penned up
eleven head in two stables for two;
days. During this time, thle State
claimed two cows were badly injured
by goring. Tile counisel for the de
fence argued thlat ther'e was no wvil
ful and malicious injury (101e the
cattie. Tile court charged thle jury
as no wilful and1( malicious act hlad
beeni provein, thlat tile defendants,
though liable for damages, were not
guilty of the oftence chlarged, and
he0 dir~cted a verd(ict of not guilty,
which was found. The Court also
took occasion to review the iniquities
of the presenlt fence law, showing
thlat it op~erated1 greviously upon1 theO
poor01 farmer. Ho said that it reCqired
$180 worth of fencing to enclose $50)
worth of land, andti that crops had
no0 protectionl unless5 fences are built
or the law repealed. He hoped that
thle law wvould be repoaled.
' Court then adjourneod till 10
Tile following cases were tried on1
Th'Ie Staite vs. Henry Taylor, Jos.
Sltiith and and Jesse .Peny, and the
State vs. the same~ an~d Henry Gib'
son-steailing cotton from Mr. Thos.
Li. Rosbr'ough. Jesse Peay turned
State's evidence, and the others
State vs. Hamilton -Howitt-2 in
dictments for r'eceiving stolen cotton.
It was proved thaIt he bar'gained for
tile cotton stolenl from Mr. Ros
borough. Ohear for tile deinee.
But the evidence was overwhelm
ing anti Howitt was found guilty.
Judge Mackey shows no mercy to,
State vs. Margaret Aiken and
Elizabethl 'Aiken, white-assault on:
Sarah Strothler, colored. Obear
& Davis for tile defence. Verdict,
guilty. Sentence $20 fine or 5 days
eachl in jail.
8 o'clock the court p~roceded
to try the case of tile State vs. Hl. A.
Smitli for breach of trust with
frauduilent intent. The indictment
was road. Col. [Rion, defendant's
counsel read the answer of the de
fondant offering the plea in bar thlat
the defendant had plead guilty to-a
previous indictment esimilar to the
present one and could 'not hoeteore
be again put uponi trial.
*Solicitor Mackey for 'thie state
~ eiirfed to the answer.
'.The court heard the argumenu4nI
Col. tion for defence, .thu
It is the boast of the common law
of England that o man 'shall be
tried twice for the same offence nor
punished twice for the same offence;
and that no quibble of the Crown's
Counsel should subvert the law.
This law has spread into all Inglish
speaking couit'ies. In this state in
order to prevent fraud &c., on the
part of . those who hold offices of
trust, laws are passed to provent the
dereliction of duty, but each law is
regulated according to the status of
the case. The object of the several
laws concerning the County Treasu
ry is not that the state shall have all
the processes but it must olect the
method of procedure.
It is the act of prudence to elect
that procedure which is most gener
al 4nd comprehensive in its nature.
As in the case of homicide, the state
should first try for murder, then for
manslaughter, then for ass mit and
battery with intent to kill &c. It is.
not generally the practice to proceed
in several different ways but when
such a proceeding is contemnplated,
the indictment should have been
brought on the most co;nprehensive
charge at first and not, as in the
present case upon a minor charge
and then upon a grenatar. For if
the offence chargoe. in the so :nd
indictment inclu led the offonce
charged in the first, or if facts
necessary to prove the second in
dictment will prove or tend to-prove
the first indictment, then convictiun
on the first indictment will b.: the
second indictment. Th~o law will
not allow its officers to- begin with
the sihaller indictment. first and then
to proceed with grave: charges.
Coun. e' then proceedld to show
that the s.une charge wa repeate
substantially in both in:lictammnts,
end continued : "Does not the
charge that Smith on'hezzlei1 the
money embrace also the charge that
he failed to turn it ove:, and the State
i prevented now from seeking why
the money was not forwarded T It
i not neccssaryfthat't' e sme offence
shall be charged but only that it
should be the same net which forms
the basis of both offences.
He then cited 1 Whaurton 565, to the
effect that when two offences arise
from the same act, a senten',e in one
prevents a trial for the other.
But when the act can be divided
into two branches, as when one steals
two different articles at the same
time, he can be tried for both of
fences, unless the the articles belong
to the same person.
An important qualification is that
when one offence is a necessary imgre
cdient or aiccompanlijnont of the other,
they cannot both he prl)ocedd on.
Authorities from Several States we're
cited in support of this position.
Wh .rt nl satys when the evidenice 110.
cossary to support the recond ill
.1~:tmeont would lave producedl con
viction oni tile first, thieni the plea of
autre/bis conniet is generally good
but not othlerwisle."
Had tile seconid indictment been
tried first, then the other might also
have been tried, but otheiwire. Now
the evidence requiired to provo 011
beizzlement would mlore than prVove
the offencee of not turning over
muoney, and by thle authorities above
cited, the seconxd inidictmfont cannot
He then citedl 18 Wallace's U. S
Reports, page 168, ex parte Lang,
to thme offect that no0 Plan can be twice
lawfully punished for the sar'e of
fence ; andl~ thoulgh such questions
have been raised when different
offences ar~e tried in differenit courts,
yet tile prlinlcile is certainl whiere thle
same conl:t tries for offencesc
founded 01n tile same1 fact.
He also cited authorities from
Kentucky in supplort of the proposi
tion. Also from Illinlois..
Bishop onl erkninal law also cited
to show thit miisdemeai nru as well as
felonies should1( be included in tile
Authorities of Southu Carolina
were cited to show thamt this oibains
iln South Carolina. In 1 1Rich. 220,
State vs. Rich'oir, the Atarn ,y 0 en
oral said if tile evidenlce iln tihe second
case wouldI have convicted onl the
firs~t, then the rule of autrefois con
vcet wvould have been valid. The
court said in thlis case thatt when the
evidence adduced in the second in
dictmont would also have carried the
first, then the p~lea is proper.
By these authorities it is not no.
cessary to show that the same of
fence is 'hlarged in both, but if b'oth
offonces be founded in the same act,
then the conviction on tile former
indictment bars tile latter.
Solicitor Mackey kelied for .th'e
Stato.. He denied tile- pgeises of
the defendant's argument, d cited
ttwo Statutes undh w the
tinflttments Were brought. he
Gbnra Statutes, page 84, soe ion
12, provide that each county tre ui
tew'shall make monthly. reports and
turn over imoney monthly -to the
t trinrer. Thes , punia( ent
o finti eei
pro hied in page 9 section 51. Under t a
this statute the first indictment was d
brought. 'he " d. idictznent h
for breach of t 'it is basd on the
statute, Rage ?1O, seti n 11, the p
|punishment for which is provided' t)
on page 742, section 5. Ho then
proceeded to controvert the argu- s
ments of the defence. The question
is, now, whether the facts proven in T
the first indictment woiild'algo have w
proven the offence charged in the tl
second. The state does not deny a
that a portion of the evidence re- cc
quired in this trial would have I
proven the first. Bu t the evidence J
does not stop here. The state now F
proposes to go further and prove 1
not only that the treasurer did not ft
turn the money over, but moreye a1
that lie embezzled it.
Tho, statute: undler which the Arlit ci
indictment' was drawn is simply in- A
tended to regulate , the action of .d<
county treaisurers and to) provenLtil
thorn locking up the public inoney 01
in their safes or sl)cMating on it., 0
That is all. The offence charged' cl
was the refusal tQ report on the 15th ti
March, The second. indictment
charges that the embe.zlemont was 'p:
committe 1 on the 31st March. as
These are two separate offonces, I w
under two sel)arato statutes. ; In the . m
State vs. Nathan 5 Richardson page .Ci
25,1, the court held that a convicti9o
for rape did not bar a conviction for 7
robbery where both offences were ti
committedi at the same tirme. U. 1)1
S. vs. R.tdambush, 11 Curtis, was of
also cited. Wharton in his Crimi
nal Law Vol. 1, section Ca35i says:
It m-iy gt nerall y saiul th-et the fact $t
that the two of edics form part of ti
the same transaction is of no avail T
when the prisoner could not have hi
been 'onvicted of the second offeuce of
nndcer the first indictment, 1 Wiir- ti
ton 50l was also cited ; also Waito'H af
Dignest. In other- Words it is laid II
down that one may be convi'ctcd of sa
a minor offence~ and then con1victed (4
of it major offence afterward. Wia- t!
toil Vol 1, Section o63 says that a
conviction for assault with intent w
to kill will not br .a conviction for lii
murder. In this case the state first of
charged the ,defendant with haiving ,
faile.l to pay over money collected., C
And now the defcdaunt still refusing w:
to pay over this money the - stte'; i
charges him with having embezzle:l C
.t. These are not 'thesane offonce.s,, to
for theindictments are different, the
charges are different and the evi- au
dence necessary to prove the first n
-wvould not have proven the seconld, h
for the first indictment did not gi
charge embezzlement. to
The court said the question is
whether the indictments are identi- st
cal. Do they charge the saine of- w,
fence eodenm nomine, or even in of- p
feat ? Are the counts interchange- in
able, not even in terms but merely a'
in effect ? And again could the L
judgment rendered in the first, cover
the guilt charged in the secon I ?
In the first, the-treasurer was s
charged with failing to rep~ort nhd si
return moneys on the 15th March. fc
in the second he is charge-1 with s
the embezzlemient of monevs .on the hi
The offences are not identical. It d1
appears that the first offence con- bi
tatins no feature that define1; the b
second. It would not have been
competent under the first indict-.
mont'to prove embhezzlemlen', for the tI
charge was not made. In the second w
he is charged with larceny. In the Il
'first no charge of this Crimne is nudo-e ti
In the second indictment he is . t
charged wvith having emibezzlin a h
greater amount than the first in- e,
dictmnent charges him with with- tI
Tt ha~s beeni held if 0on0 is charged 0.
for an offence in wvhich tihe testimony in
ncessar~y to convict would have con- ti
victed under a former indictment i
then the second is barred. This
means, doubtless, that whlen mnate:-i n
ali evidence for sneond is also mate- h
rial evidence for the first. But the ni
imaterial facts of this case are nota
material to the first. '
It is alleged that the first indict- ti
ment charged that defendant faileda
to turn Over mioneys, and(, onl the 3
second indictment, to show that he o
Ienibezzled money, would also show F
that he failed to pay it over, andi
that therefore the second indlictment a'
h)barred. This is erroneous. Ho
'is charged with embezzl.ing on 31st '
March, but even had the offence
bencaged on 15th Md u-eh, tihe .1
lea would not hold. I
CJourt cites e~so of one acquitted I.
for larceny of goodls, yet indictedl for i
receivni;.:tolen gwoods. Yet in order to'3
convict for receiving stolen goods it a
is esssential to show the goods were n
The court, after carefully consid
ermg the terms of the 1st indict- e
mont cannot perceive thlat identity k
essential to make the charges idenlti-e
cali. 1t will not be conutuended thatr
if HI. A. Smith had been acquiitted of a
faitlng to report On 15th March lie n
could not have been1 indicted for cm -
b~ezzlemcnt on the 31st March. It i
appears to the court that it has no'.'
dutty to perform, b~ut to overrule the i
ple0a. The plea of autrefois, connviet d
is hereby overruled.
Defendant's counsel excepted and e
the exception was noted. Defend- a
ant moved for a postponement.
Court askedl on what grounds. Dec
fence stated the ruling was a sur-:
priseO as lhe had considered his pos5i- i
tion impregnable. The A Storpey t
G/enera/Lad 5o a~cknfowledg/ed to him. r
The~b court was greatly astonished to f1
hear this. He was wvilling to bause i
h'~ reputation' as a jurist upon the t
oinion' he bryl jiust .delivered. The v
amission of the Attorney General is j
astonishing. Soliitor-..."He sta'ted I
a contrary opinion to mne," "Ootfrt.--- a
"Thix erely shows that Mr, Meltokii
-* The court, howevei- in compliance (
with the request of Col. IIbop ad
journed the lresthig'of the baetantil
Thursdayimornin at nine o'clock.
The State vs. Harry Elzey, for
assault with intent to kill,'was then1
tkcen pl . He was fton ailt~y 6f
ssault and battery. Ho was the it
ividnal whQ, after kiocking down,
is antagonists, at upon hiiii sad
lashed his arms as cooks slash'
ork skin beforo roasting. None of
ie wounds were serious.
State vs. malicious misohiof,
iooting a goat. Verdiet, not guilty.
Court opuuod at at 9) A. M.
hursday. The trial of H. A. Smith
as continued. The jury was drawn,
to Statoe. making two challenges
id the defence seventoon. The jury
nnposed the following peironis:
McMeekini. 0. S. Jojnes, 13. H.
mies, It. E Ellisonl, Sr., White, and
rank Mozee,. niourou Liston, John
,core, Nelsoli iMI.irsihill, 'Timt Ash
ird, Dennis Miller, Moses Jaume4
id Warren Green, Colored.
Joel Copses W-is the first witn'1ss
lld. He testifiel that he w.1s
uditor at the time of the allcge
ifalcation, and then testified ats .t)
1o amount duo for taxers, and furt13
tostitiod that he'had seen the safe.
Tenul for a wager by one who
aimed not to know the combin.
J. S. Filleb'own sworn----He ex
ained tie workings of the tax ofli:to
d then testifietd that $18,t08.86
are still due at the time of sett.k( -
et, and that Snith sail 'f am
1F. L. ('.;rdoza testifiel that. $'17,
7.65 were turned over by Smith for
o year eniding Oct. 31st, 1874--ex
ainead "omiaJ1bination safes"---1hailces
opeling are nts 1 to 1,000,00").
Mr. Smith wa.s plac~edCl up1)on tle
an'l.' Ho tositiled his olli.e -18
fort a large amonut of r'mone.1'.
Liat he himself colle(te 1 less; thin
LIf the taxes, thlt h, was ill hi
lice ont!y ab it one third of the
no. He (isc.vo'"ed the deficiency t
ter hit rotlrn from his last lbsencec.
a Welt, to Ct)himbia :1 Friday an I
w. Mr. Little and0 tol--here the
art initerposod and re fused to let.
e defendant testify 11s t' his clla
tions on the groulTal that this
>uld permit the doeen-:mt to make
s own cas, and said this was one
the ruiinit:l p .inniples of law.
>ilnsel wished to make argumen t.
nt refused to h a'" arg.nent, but
11 permit authorities to be a ldnee).
O could state what ho told te
>mptr. Per Cene.-al, b-.itnot th t lie
1cd anl v, one Olse.
Counsel argued that the proper
tlhorities being absent, the expla
tion was made to Little. Court
la that the declaration e,m(d be
von prnovidel Mr. Little be lrovoJl
be authorized to receive reports.
Mr. Filebi-own w.rS put on the
Tad and testified that Mr. Little'
is authorizol to receive wijtten re
>rts from County Tre.tsurers. The
formation le.iding to Mr. Smith's
ro:;t was fuarnished. witness b~y Mar.
Cour't her'e permiitted MrfI. Smith to
stify on thiis poinit, Mr. Smith re
mond," "[told him..miy oflice wats
ort $18,0g0 and I h id como to in
rm~a thl.(>Jmptrolloi--Gonoral. He1
id the Geneoral wats absent. 1 t ild
ml I would have to return to
innfksbor..o0 pay checksu on~ Satmi
ty ani I wouIld return to C3olmin
ai on1 K..ntl:,. I don't know)' w't
rame of tho $18,0J0, I enn't ac
'iat for it,'.I loft money hiere, aun
.bs inl S.ilmon's Bauk. It was
Louight befo're I h-ft that my voice
as rh Trt, I failed to find any de
.iency. When I returnedo the last.
1me, I look:11night *after' night and
mid a doficioney. If M r. Dawid.son
ad lived I think I1 could have dlii
>vered where were live or tiilleen
ionsan-.I dollars. Wheln I went ofr
In 5O(cond time I had $100, I got
it and telograp)hed to Hardy Solo
on and1( got $100 more. The last
mec I left I did not hiwe $100. The
est time was before tax colleictioni.
I have nio ln-opor'ty nlow. I d>
'Tt gilalo. I b)ot $10) onIce on
>rse~f ra'tinp, I hatao h)Ot tireait. I did
>)t use0 any1 of this $18,000, for
ylfor any 0one lso. My wife has.
archased a house for $600 cnsh an:l
1( bialanice unider bond ani:1
ortgatgo, of this I onily pa:id
)dollars. The chief exnses80
repairing were b~one by Dr',
othke. I furnuished $125 for ropair-~
i.Cross~q. aramnied. I did not
ways puait up the mioney~ collected
ron1 when pr1oHscut, I wont off I
iink abont a month after the col'
ieti:>n of taxes commenced but I
Lon' t relmmber. During that
oriod I don't. remember how much
collected. What 1' coTlleced I put
a my safe and pa:id some over to
[r. Cardozai. I think I wasn absent
bout thr'co weeks. Don't know how
mnch money wats collected1. W1heni I
stturnied my eloerks paid oTver' the
Loney' in11a I failed to find a defi
ancy. I remained at homed I don't
no0w how 1long. The last tume I
'as ab~senita week or ten days, antd
3tulrnedl about the 5th March. Was
I. home about threc woeks before
ay airrost. Question-where did
(ou go-"I dlon't know that that is
y-of your bulsiness. "--Court.
hishevery businjess of tihe
tate. The whole conlduet of the
ofence has been1 characterized with
nlualshinlg arrogance.' rThe defenldanlt
msplained that hie mfean tno disrespoet
ad was ordered toT proceed.
I went to Washington pna to'
taltimnore and returned to WVashing
Tan. I had $100 after b~uying my
leket. I stayed at-the hotel two (Tr
tree days, I telegrap~hoed for $100 i
iore. When I turned over thoe
lonley to Mr. Fillebrowvn, that wvas
11 belonging to the Statoaad, 9uhli
y, I had about $400, of which*I8Q0
ran paid on the) hottue whihld wtt
i jail-inowhbO atbout Nooember,
hitog that tinie I slpent about $t00
nid had the *300 loft.
I owned three horses- when th1
ollectioti of taxbs began. 'A fler thi
atobn hthorsa for *15o.
e asked. But it -
rhether there war
hst It Wolr
it witihout drawing on
Riekumuod - When I cams
money wias in the office, but I
know how much. The second
I returned money was returne(
formally, but soion after my roturn,
examine 1 anri fouud a o(lOiency.
Froimi lmy Oxl)evien1ce I had anl idoa
of what shiotild h.Ve bn kenO l l" Uoetct
T'ie first or seiC'ond night--thigkiig
that the money was niot as much1 an
it should have bcen, I niearehod--I
stitl nothing to iy clerks--I re
tun,,ed 'ifter the penaliity .was pitton
I conltimte':1 to employ lr. 'Rabb and
Mr. Hagood. Bat . Mr. Aikort wan
not in iy ofli-e after my return.
I did nlot sy anything to the
clerk,; ablolt the loss. t
ledirE'ee! Ef.m(inlbiati0n_--MN1y salary
wa s 82,500. 1 Nas treasurer thr'e
tycarst. The extras weret~ usAl'lly
t500 a year. My ii:thtr lives in
i)r. 1'e:ke was called for the do.
fenc(e. He testifiedl that he was the l
tti.e: :n-law of the defendant, testi
lied to haiving lont the defendant
o1"ney. :11ul t'> aiding in the sulppor~t,
If th" (e''endatlt's family. Don1't
ki1W 1w tit defendant owns umy.prop
'rtv. 'he testillolly he0re Closed.
S). ll.ion openel for the defence.
l'hi3"oflencee with whish the defend- I
mit is cha11rge-1 is i (lill'orcut ca1se
'rm the St.tte losing tue money hv
tin, and als') liflerent from the
barge of not tur in the money
>Vor*. thoiugh inc .ji g. The
-hairge is not only that he is gui1 of
bre:tnlh of trust, hlt also with
i'flhdu1lt intent. A simple, brea .
>f trust wi;1 not be suticienlt. It
un1st he prov \ed that by his On ar(C1,
aii ii:t by neglige.'nce, he had do
rlludel the St. ate, not, simply that
he1( m-meyli wV.L5 lost in his office, but
11bhat he took it. 'he fnuent.ion of
"11111i1ting a fraudti is a iecessatry in
;radi':t. umnsel then coitimtied
.gu:niient to siow that the crimuintl
utoin w.I w.intig. "Where have
mi ilny proof to showthat .the do
endaimt hits defrauded the Stato- hy7
sin'; this mo0ney. I know that t idu
'inry l1''.Oiers no.1w in thue State where
gro:t de:d of ste;'ling is going on
re objects of wein'1 m.tis 0, and henei a
,se of this kind appo tirn before the
nu t with the odium of the publie
esting on him. 'et it may be that
hl *n n:tu: u gave this in im the face
f "a'. honest in m,' it did not lie,
t may be th.at wo e.m1 show that '
hough this muohney hasi bOen lost,
till it was not taken by the defend
nt. Juries sho.uld not h:iiasty.
n the North recently, after a bank
'resident had been imprisoned
or years for embezzlement and had c
ied, yet years after on the death
if the cashier, whose testimony had
oivicte: him, the 11ous1e of the
* bier wis puled1 do)wn and( i anl
ht) oven(0 inl the( cashier's houso8 was
.mn] the idlenuiral p):1(ek-ige that was
oat. H1( c'ited3 other casori to w*I n:
urlies niot to) be hasty,
Now. if Mr. Sinith had takeni
a18,000) anid goe ofl to Washinigton~~
r .B: ltimm'e, woumld lhe have been i
ool eno0ghit~ to returni to this little
own.. If1'he 1(5ok ii18,tji0, why dlid
1( not 1ake the othier j48,000 V This
w' couild have doni(lJe ver'y eaisily.
He tesi't.ilies3 t.hai, hie wiorked( night
ufter nigal to soe if ther1 wats a de
igi I, mli wleni lhe discovered one lie
venit immiauslitely to the otlice of the
Mupiqtroller Geneiral and tells aill
Now,' gentlen3011n, you may he
1(eard( rumilors thatt Mr. Sniithi hats
nloney. Whlere is the money?
Whiere isan pil~lropelrty ? If thero
voero aniy, why did not the State
>r'ove it ? It seems~ that lie has
pont11 his ,iI000--his 3 years salary,
mud hans nothing. Hlow the hiouse
m( no0w lives ini was bought, yon haveo
>e(en showni. How cou1(1li e haive
med up1 the $18,000 in 'three
Now, we are no't comlled'
ihiow where fhis-mnoey weont.. In a
-ivil actioni fori damalgol tre wo'tld,
C..ouns:el then (1xplainhed the die
ails of the 'ombiiiiationi locks, anid
hen~l devi3;td an1 inigeniousn theorny to
show thaiit anly oneO one( with at good
tar maly hitve enltere1d inl tho dbmad oIf
,ion aund aitt enIt.i vely listening might
Siaily haIIve opened1L the sa~fe. It had
eonl proved that a genitloman had
')u(co opened0 the loo3k withiout kniow
.1ng thocomb11 inationh. And this fact
hauving been,1 kniownt publicly somlo
wickedlly disposedJ pers'on entored in
lmd( stole this moneoy..
Tlhe( couslll' noxt proceeded to
iccount for a part of the mnonoy. For
Li etstitimig the loss at $18,000
Thle Comnp trollher General allows a
oredlit (- omnly $31,000, and yet the
State Treaisuor swears that lhe ro
r*ived1 $37,'i7i, and this accounts
for over $f,000.
"Ini coehilnsion wooclaim thiati ghi
wA have been0) unifortumate, we have
mnot beoun dlishonest. We do not
charge any of the cerkrs i the omfee.
We blamne our-selves for' negligenco.
Solicitor Mackey reqplied, confnng
himselif strictly to the matter'in ise.
Tj*h0 ciirculfmino~s all point to ,the
guialt; of the prisoneAr, We mustI
fire~ privo that the defendant had
this $1F,000 ini his possessi5~on, - We
have the evidence5 oIf M~r. Fillobrown
'who faaes' that this amount .is; duo
of the 'ook. The other proof is the
conifessiei of the defeondant himself.
Now, tt defenceoclaim that $6,000
have been ptand. They have tatkenf,
19 1fontlhls to' fmnd $6,000. If wo e
give thien mj.ftls more they may
nindi anoth'or Zithousand, amid if
th~ b*eak ~ ~oveni they may.
~t otlg~ftheoy buiy a mu"
were thorou ,
V licitor then t
defonco adulits that tUis
tiot t ho the mono, ther..
19s lies between the treasurer ..
s dei n oe of these tramps wi
go r')allg arotnd the com try an1d
who, opened this combination and =
the monoy evaporated. '.
Hle here reviewed the ciret
Ataices of the dofdndant's abse 6
and his testimony concerning . 1
alleged discovery of hia loss, and it.
ludodi to his failure to speak to the
c'lerks in his ofice of the losso. "D~oes
lhe say a word to any one as far as
we know ? Does he fay a word to .
bis bold:lieon who had' placed- im
pl icit confidence in him ?. -"Doe& ho
say a word to his intimate friends -
:r. to the Comptroller Geineral or
renshlrer ? After tho lapNse'of
Nienet, days he confessed the loss t)
Diapt. Little, and whts arrested.
Col. Rion - objected to this argu.
nont, because the court had ver.
)roperly refused to permit him ti
idtduce the very testimony for the
ailure to produco which ho is now
'ensurod. Court sustained this.
iolicitor then gave te, thupry of
Lhe offence. It was at Sproud1ci4ed
1)i y which he Hliould lei v
noney oeaUtg1Uiitl county to save
,be c'owmty and the se m u.Mc
oil the jury "I have not hurt you. I
mlye saved the county money.
knd the whole plan was to got t
)ltrdt)n from M oses, (and it would
lot take aill that money to. got a
)itrdon) and tlheir nljoy the balance.
tld who wiould'not live nine1 months
u tio bitc room 'of the county jail
t'tMwothousaud dollars a month 'i
'ho confessiol wan mado becauso it
.ould bo impossible to deceive
illebrowin, and a llight fro)
outinty would be at perpetu
nce. He preforred to romni
ill and then come out' and go
ow an to the - property.. It wt,
o vocy remarkable if the defeuda
ad invested his money right hert
.hen the State would hlava seized it
11uand his imprisonlmnt would have
eon for nothing. He thereforo
owls no property."
As to the assortion concerning
rt. D.tvidson, it almost makes me
ish for the last day to come inl
rdor that Frank D.tvidsou may rio
p aund toll the people of the Stato
'hat hocamtef of their hIonoy.
The solicitor continuod his argu.
icut at length.
The Soliicitor then (closed1 with an
p(33a1 to tihe jury t~o act fairly
i,hout prejudico, and to blend their
mpi'athiy for the deofenidant with
ymplJathy for ther outraged comnu
ity frorn whomw the~ money han beoon
alken. - . . ..
The cottr-t-Liou c'hargeYod
'The irisoner at thie q P
3i argial with brhiti of t~ - yi
r ildullnt intenlt ill tis thiq h~arg
vitJ theL collectioni of taixo~ e lio
olkie't ;uch taxes anld apll r'opria
.homt to hisn own usne, frauduloi
11nd ini violatio~n of his duty tin
Ay treasurorrei. It isl tile mer~
1roison th wv that
uan1 in to be consliider)od ine
'aso of e cirlitan ti al evidence
the circe sur'roituldinlg the ac
caust, be compiete anid p)rovin g
guilt beyond a roiasonablo dot a
l'ho caso has; been condknied wt
thility and earnestness
rate with tht gravity of
d 'et accotabtlt~ility by
is to gnard il.
' reliction (,
I will ju.
Feca.-, y the
riacts Referoni f onlou
ihouild only impe1 thm
iearch more carefnlly hisH
Ibeforo .,rondering a
Pontius '~ yihidedd
focepblic opinionl andui eln
t0n1<(on whloml he kcnowV to
ho0 ilmoecent. Anti Pon tous Pilate's
mmistake wa-ms the cruceifi xion eighteen
enltiois ago. If you beClieve the
p~risoney gnilty beyond a reinoniable
doubt, your v6~diet will bo "guilty.
If there be at reasonable doubt, y/)mr
verdict will be "not guilty."
Tile jury were then dlismlinssd to
the jury room. After savoral hor
they replor'ted disagreement, with no
possibility of agreeing and were din
charged. It in reported thatt fomi
jurors, H. McMookin, R1. E. Ellisn~
Sr., 0. S. Jones and M~ones .Ja~m
wenc for conviction idthe balane'
for aiwjIittai. The '(o1icitor ga
notie for a now trial iwi h ach
T1heo court of Sessionw
adjourned, [and the civil
tered itpjon. 'The civil -
inipo1~nt. Tile cas5O
the 'toin Council of 'ih
damag~es for falling into
Was dicniud each patl
costs. T1hoeconil gave 3
Auwi #Low~iZ--Th0 n
erAble beings in the world
suffering from Dyspepsia at
More than unventy-flv'
of thle peoolO in flyQ
re aflihcto. WI
xml | txt