University of South Carolina Libraries
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 for stoalage. 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 several others. 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 Slarceny. 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' discharged. 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 o'clock- Tuesday. Tile following cases were tried on1 Wednesday : 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 plead guilty. 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, cotton thlieves. 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. COUR [vaus.-Wednesday-At 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 spoks 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 be tried. 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 above ruling. 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 31st March. 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 holding-.t 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 stolen. 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. 'an. 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"). State rested. 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. ttl. -- 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. nirsuhquestions e asked. But it - rhether there war hst It Wolr it witihout drawing on 111011 OyB. 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 WVushin gtoui. 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 nontths? \. 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" bro Fl'onikoii' 011..M eel it, 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 of venue. 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 wall $1,100. Auwi #Low~iZ--Th0 n erAble beings in the world suffering from Dyspepsia at Complaint, More than unventy-flv' of thle peoolO in flyQ re aflihcto. WI and( f"'