Thomas B. Pierce, former cashier of the Home Savings bank of this city, convicted in superior court yesterday morning on charges of embezzlement of funds said to have exceeded $100,000, belonging to the bank and its customers, will serve a four years sentence in the state prison.
Pierce’s decision to accept his sentence was made known to Judge W.M. Bond in superior court late yesterday afternoon, and the judge changed the original sentence of five years to four years.
Pierce was taken in custody by Sheriff John F. Harward and was taken in an automobile to Raleigh to be entered at the state prison. A telephone message to Raleigh last night brought the information that Pierce has already entered the prison and is now serving his sentence.
The final sentencing of Pierce brought to an end one of the most dramatic trials in the history of the local courts. His conviction, coming at 11 o’clock yesterday morning, was at first believed to be merely another turn in the slow grind of the wheels of justice. At the time attorneys for Pierce gave notice of an appeal to the supreme court, and Judge Bond fixed the defendant’s bond at $100 for the appeal and $15,000 on the judgment.
It was not until late in the afternoon that Pierce decided to accept the fate handed to him by the superior court. His attorneys, carrying out his request, appeared before the judge and stated the wishes of their client. Judge Bond met the offer half way and leniently clipped off a year from the sentence imposed at the morning session of court.
The jury returned a verdict at 11 o’clock yesterday morning, after having had the case under consideration since Thursday afternoon at 5 o’clock.
At the conclusion of the case S.C. Brawley, of counsel or the defendant, entered an appeal to the supreme court. Judge Bond immediately fixed the appeal bond at $100 and the bond on the judgement at $15000. He named Jones Fuller of counsel for the prosecution to represent the state in passing upon the sufficiency of the bond. Later this appeal was withdrawn.
The only break in the monotony of a hung jury early yesterday morning proved to be a supplementary charge made to the jurors by Judge Bond. This came shortly before 10 o’clock. The additional charge members of the bar said, appeared to favor the prosecution.
Pierce was in the courtroom when the jury returned its verdict. He received the decision with no show of emotion. He paid close attention to the remarks submitted by Judge Bond prior to the passage of sentence, and afterwards expressed appreciation for the able work done by his attorneys.
“Lots of sympathy is wasted in cases of this kind,” Judge Bond told a crowded court room audience. “In this case,” he continued, “the bank or at least Mr. Hill, it’s president, has lost $30,000, and the public has lost more than $100,000. This man had no right t6o use the public’s money for private gain and private speculations. There is a lot of bank busing going on these days, and it has got to come to a stop. The bank business must remain unshaken. If something isn’t done to bring a stop to this kind of stealing, it will get so people will refuse to trust their funds to banks.
“This is the fourth case in which a bank cashier or a bank president has been before my court within two years. In each instance the defendant was charged with robbing the public of thousands of dollars. There is no excuse for such acts. The bankers who resort to this practice do so deliberately, wilfully and wrongfully. Maybe this young man intended paying the money back. Probably he would have paid it back had he won out. This, however, does not alter the case. He had not right to the money.”
Judge Bond concluded his remarks by declaring, if the time has come when men can misappropriate thousands of dollars at a time, without paying the penalty, it is time to be more lenient with men who steal a ham or a bushel of wheat. These petty thieves, we know, he said, are always headed for the roads.
Pierce’s incarceration in the state prison brought to a conclusion one of the most important embezzlement cases in the history of Durham county. The former bank cashier, for many years regarded as a prominent and leading citizen of Durham, reached the limelight stage more than a year ago when unofficial rumors circulated throughout the city gave notice of a shortage at the Home Savings bank. These rumors were followed by official statements, through which John Sprunt Hill, president of the bank made public the facts in the case and assured depositors that no loss would result to them by reason of the shortage.
For some months, Pierce remained free, spending his time between Durham and his former home in Duplin county. Six moths ago a Durham county grand jury inquired into the charge of embezzlement, and Pierce was placed under arrest. His bond was fixed at $10,000. It was signed by his aged mother. Several terms of court passed without a trial. At the term of court under way, Judge Bond insisted upon a trial.
The case was hard fought. It lasted two days. There were five counts against Pierce. The first count resulted from a loan made to the Home Savings bank by the First National bank of this city; $25,000 was involved. The other four counts were based on irregularities in individual deposits.
Pierce entered pleas of not guilty to each of the five counts. His attorneys originally attempted to block the trial with a plea of mental incapacity and the lack of “criminal intent.” Judge Bond refused the motion, and the case was tried upon its merits.
John Sprunt Hill, president of the bank, was the chief witness against Pierce. He gave a lengthy recital of conditions in the bank at the time Pierce was removed as cashier. Practically the entire case was built around Mr. Hill’s testimony.
The attorneys in the case occupied nearly the entire day Thursday with dramatic speeches. Some of the best legal oratory in the history of the county was presented to the jury during the day. Judge Bond charged the jury at some length and the fate of the former bank cashier was left in the hands of the jurors. Rather than take a chance on a mistrial order, Judge Bond allowed the jury plenty of time for an agreement. When no agreement had been reached at an early hour yesterday morning, the consensus of opinion in court circles was that the jury was deadlocked. The return of the jury at 11 o’clock and the proceedings that followed proved to be the climax in the dramatic case.
From the front page of the Durham Morning Herald, Saturday, June 16, 1923
No comments:
Post a Comment