Show FIRST DISTRICT COURT may 21 term ron aion 11 I jr ir presiding lre stilluf SATURDAY MAY 13 at nine a m court met pursuant to adjournment the first case was the people vs us levi W smith on a charge of embezzlement col E T sp sprague ngue and F S richard esq for the people and ta P U J T barratt E esq iq for the defense the following jurors were ivero emean cled to tr try the case C B dark clark willis lemons lemons henry garner shadrach jones gea lashas W huysing L G porter IV G aaron jackson Hu hugli gAd adam ams abos J wilson BIR NATHAN jux JU was sworn for the prosecution ho he deposed that on the of oct lo 10 e paid to defendant lev levi IV smith the sum suni of one hundred and forty nine dollars upon defendants lefenda rits r request c qu estand and representation that mrs smith had authorized him to rece receive I ve for lier her this transaction took placa in tho the office of witness in ogden cit city defendant was ilie the son in law of mra mrs wheeler c r and acted as an agent todo to do business for glicr that was why witness paid the money to sinith for his mother in law tho the amount was not paid smith as a loan but on his request MRS MILS WHEELER sworn morn said defendant was her sonin inlaw law had not paid her any money purporting to come from mr tanner defendant had given witness a mortgage on oil a piece of land for the loan of the mortgage was in the hands of mr tanner as her attorney defendant went to witness and told her that tanner wished her to put her name to a document she bile did not know what the document was but it turned out to bo be a note for the above named amount and which was secured by the mortgage defendant did not explain to her that the paper she signed was the note for the aith neither er did she read the document to see what it was she thought it was vas all right as defendant had previously taken papers from mr tanner for her lier to sign and she silo signed them tile noto note was negotiable and und was in the custody of mr tir tanner lie ile was her attorney defendant had never paid aid luerany her any money neither did sho she enow know that lip ho was using her money as sho she never authorized liim him to do BO so she did not know that he had drawn any of other her money until BI mr r tanner told her that it had aten all drawn sho she never authorized him at any timo time to colle collect ct any money from any person for her w SAUNDERS sworn said that on ono one occasion when in tile canyon lie asked mrs wheeler for pay for some services he had rendered her she silo told him to go to smith as sho she had let him have her money to go into business in somo some second secondhand hand baud store and slie bile told witness she would liko like him to po i into nto the business with defendant ya lie was not mistaken in this matter T R LISK sworn said he had sold to smith a piece of land laud the deed was made out in smiths name and not mrs wheelers name it waa was paid for by smiths money he further said that mrs smith told witness that she silo let smith have money to buy tho the garden spot this was about a week after the purchase se being croix examined witness thought mrs wheeler might have said smith lent her hei her money instead of saying she silo loaned him the money to pay for th the land LEVI W SMITH sworn said heeler loaned him which she silo offered ered to let liim him havo have to go into business with he claimed that mrs wheeler told him that lio lie could have the money and us uso so tho the and pay her 60 interest this springford spring gaor for tho th uso use of it when ho he went to mrs wheeler with the noto note he told that mr tanner wished her to indorse it mrs wheeler did not authorize liim him to get the note mortgaged and draw tho the money on it defendant and mrs wheeler had several times talked about bis ais going into sec see ond hand business one particular time sho she eaid said lie could have the uso use of her money to go into the secondhand business or an any other business lie might choose cli he le was sober when tie asked mrs wheeler to indorse the note told her it was feces mary before TIr girtanner Tanner would cash it il dont know whether mrs wheeler knew whether it m as tho the note believe she did F p RICHARD 39 ESQ addressed address sed tho the court and jury for the people reading the charge against the tile defendant as stated in tho indictment and showing from the testimony odthe of alio witnesses wherein in it was sustained by the evidence he ile said I it was not denied by tile the defendant that lie received from mr tanner and that the same was part odthe of the proceeds ofa of a noto note aal mortgage belong belonging int to mrs wheeler but it was contended by the tile defense that this money was not in trusted to the defendant to bo be delivered deliver edby by him to mrs abo le r I but that he lie had a right to me it as he pleased pl emed em ed having previously previous fy borrowed bitof it of her with the promise of returning it in tho tile spring with GO 00 interest counsel then proceeded to consider the ty of this version of tile story contending bendin that no intelligent person could far for a I moment believe that mrs wheeler would consent to have her note and mortgage I converted into money and then lend it to the defendant without any security at i t the earns fama rate of interest which it t had bad been drawing receiving only his word for ita its payment ay ment without any evid euco oft of the ie debt mr richards showed from the test testimony emony th that attlio tho defendants statement of the facts was inconsistent and wholly unsupported by any tiny other witnessed while mrs wheelers er s statement of the case not only was consistent but corroborated by many circumstances and confirmatory or facts the remarks of counsel though a brief were pointed an and d impressive ve p in m P V ESQ for fr the defense de fenee addressed the jury he ile referred to the mortgage and note held by mr tanner and said the th important fact to bo be considered con I was did mrs mr wheeler autho authorize i the defendant dan t to obtain and use t the h money lie ile did lid not in fact bc lieve that the whole of the mone money y belonged to any other person peron per on than mr smi smith t b and mr tanner penner was dealing b wilh smith as principal and not as an agent and when he lie advanced the money to defendant it was to liim him on his own account counsel thought ho lie had convinced the he jury that mr tanner was dealing with smith sinith as tho the principal and not as the agent ho ile then referred to the defendant taking the tile note to mrs urs wheeler and said he explained to her that she must endorse the note before lie could get the then money ioney she wrote her name in the ag wrong ong place and it had to b bo taken to her the second time to sign it in in t the I ic proper pr er place counsel ar argued acl lilt ZO sho OK knew that she was illora in dorsing ig tho the note held by mr T tanner nn r as collateral for the mortgage for dollars sho she knew what 61 endorsement meant as well ivell aa as sho understood the meaning of agent mr barratt asked aske d ivi when ien did mrs wheeler tell tho the truth truths did she tell the truth when she mado made the affidavit or WR was it when she gave her testimony ony antho on the stand today to day according to her u evidence you must tur turn 11 a ver d diet ic t in favor of the deafen defendant dent his liberty is at stake I has ins a crime been committed if BO so who has committed it tho the general impression is that defend defendant an t is not without guilt ailt his liberty is at stake counsel would leave leav the matter for the jury to decide COL K r T made the eloping speech for the tile people he ile t complimented mr barratt on ba having iring his duty to his c client helt counsel coun cl read from tho the statutes the legal defini definition tio U of embezzlement the tile person who commits the crime may may be ba an agent or lie may not when lio lie commits the tile ense this is not very material it banot ii not disputed that tho the money was ii as paid to dell defendant enfant by mr tanner fanner for the express purpose of being paid over to mrs wheeler the money was not defenda defendants tits it was mr tanners now if the jury are sati aed that mrs wheeler is not an ail honest acquit tho the defendant but this tho the counsel eaid faid is no not an open I ii question she testified honestly ho t it in regard to the matter the tile money ir was I mr nathan tanner s it was entrusted to the defendant decoll to be conveyed coll 11 by him to mrs wheeler it IV wa appropriated by him to his own use c counsellor counsel for defense had bad attempted te to impeach the testimony of tho old lady but her statements tate ments were ivere true although given in in simplicity and cannot be impeached her very appearance vouched couched for it mr sprague sum summed nied up b by reminding the jurors that if it appeared cared to them that the of is not true they must acquit the defendant but on the the other liand hand inthey if they consider her testimony is true trite they must find the prisoner prison cr guilty the court then charged the jury who retired to their aco room n for consultation at p in they returned to the courtroom and delivered a verdict of guilty of elbez and found tho value of the property one hundred and forty mao nine diff dollars lars the timo time fixed for pasing pa sing the sentence is saturday the tile of may the court adjourned until monday lai th at am |