Dimmick v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 February 1905
• Docket Number: 1,112.
• Citation: 135 F. 257
• Parties: DIMMICK v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

135 F. 257

DIMMICK v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1,112.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 20, 1905

The $30,000 alleged to have been stolen was taken from the vault of the mint between the annual settlement of June, 1900, at which time there was no shortage, and the annual settlement made in June, 1901, when the loss was discovered. The contention of the prosecution is that the money was stolen between February 5, 1901, and the 29th day of June, 1901. There were three trials of this case. On the first and second the jury disagreed; on the third, Dimmick was convicted. The testimony upon the third trial is exceedingly lengthy. Much of it was circumstantial in its character. Dimmick denied having taken the money, and gave many explanations in regard to the testimony of the witnesses for the government. His testimony on these points was the subject of much testimony of the part of the government, tending to show that some of the explanations given by him were not true. It was shown by the testimony on the part of the prosecution that Dimmick was discharged by the superintendent of the mint on February 5 1901, for alleged peculations and fraud committed by him as chief clerk of the mint, but was retained, at Dimmick's request, for the purpose of enabling him to find some other employment. Late at night on the 18th of March, 1901, Cyrus Ellis, an inside watchman at the mint, testified that, being attracted by some noise in the cashier's room, he saw Dimmick come out of the receiving room into the corridor and go into the superintendent's room with two bags of coin in his arms, and soon thereafter saw him come out of the superintendent's room carrying a dress-suit case, which had the appearance of being very heavy, and go out at the main door upon the steps and down into the street. Dimmick denied that he was at the mint at night on March 18, 1901 and also denied that he ever had a dress-suit case at the mint, or that he ever had a dress-suit case. There were three mint employes besides Ellis, who each testified that he saw Dimmick at the mint on the night in question. Healey, one of the inside watchmen, testified that he saw him leave the mint carrying a dress-suit case. Metcalf, the doorkeeper, saw a package in Dimmick's hand about the size of a dress-suit case, but did not notice it sufficiently to discern its character. When Dimmick went down the steps at the mint he was met by Bickford, an outside watchman who testified that he walked with him to the street cars, and that Dimmick was carrying a dress-suit case. There were several other witnesses, who testified that on various other occasions they had seen Dimmick with a dress-suit case. Dimmick testified that he had carried some of his mint books, tied up in brown paper, with a hand strap, to his home, in order to do some work thereon, and stated that the witnesses might have been mistaken as to the character of the bundle. The entries in the books were very few, and the last entry was made December 31, 1900, long previous to March, 1901. In the course of Dimmick's examination it was admitted by him that he never brought them away from the mint or carried them to his home between February 5, 1901, and June 30, 1901. There is a mass of testimony concerning the numbers of the combination of the locks, tending to show Dimmick's knowledge thereof, especially the fourth number, 15. There was testimony to the effect that Dimmick told Cole that 15 was his fourth number, and that 15 was a fixture. Dimmick testified at the last trial 'I have no recollection whatever of telling him (Cole) that my last figure was 15 ' On the second trial he testified as follows: 'Q. Did you ever mention to Mr. Cole a single one of your old numbers before he stepped to the vault door to acquire a combination? A. I may have indicated to him the last figure; nothing else. Q. Did you? What is the fact? Did you give him any of your old numbers? A. When I set up the combination I stopped on 15, and, of course, showed him where the figures were on the dial. Q. I will try you once again. Did you give him any of the old numbers of the combination? A. Not for the purpose of making up his combination. Q. Did you give him any of the numbers of your combination for any purpose? A. Yes, sir. Q. What number did you give him? A. I told him I stopped on 15; it was my last number. ' Mr. Waltz, a witness on behalf of the government, testified that Dimmick told him that 15 was his last number; that 15 was a fixture; that he told Cole that 15 was a fixture. Dimmick's testimony in answer to Waltz was: 'Q. Did you tell Mr. Waltz that 15 was a fixed number? A. No, sir, except he may have misunderstood, or I may have misunderstood his question. I told him the last figure was a fixed figure, and he probably asked me, 'Well, what is the last figure?' I could not recollect definitely what was the last figure on that combination, for I had in the meantime had charge of seven or eight other combinations. My experience with that combination was nearly two years previous, or a year and a half, and I could not recollect what was the last figure, and my impression is he then stated to me that 15 was the last figure. I said, 'Then that is the fixed number;' but I never intended to convey to him that the 15 which was the last changeable figure was a fixed figure. * * * Q. Taking that to be the interpretation of the record, did you at any time say to Mr. Waltz-- I repeat that simply so that there will be no misunderstanding about it-- that number 15 was a fixed figure, one of those figures that could not be changed? A. Only as I may have had a misunderstanding about what was the last figure of the combination on that lock. All locks differ. On all of them the last figure or number or letter is a fixture, and each lock, each combination lock, differs as to the last number; and I could not recollect and did not recollect what was the fixed number on this particular combination, this upper lock. ' Dimmick's testimony at the mint investigation was: 'Q. When you gave the combination to Mr. Cole, you say you gave him four numbers to change, and the last one stayed-- remained. Is that what I understand you? A. Yes, sir. * * * Q. In other words, it changed three numbers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the first one changed? A. Yes, sir, and the second one, and the third one; those three changed. Q. The fourth one, I understand, is a fixed number? A. Yes, Sir; I was so informed by the locksmith who taught me. ' Ryan, the locksmith, testified that he never told Dimmick that the fourth number was a fixed number. There was much testimony relative to the condition of the locks in the cashier's vaults. The different combinations that had been made, the intimate knowledge of Dimmick as to the locks and combinations, the changes Dimmick made in his testimony upon the three different trials of the case as to the condition of the locks, and the testimony of witnesses on the part of the government tending to show that some of the statements as made by Dimmick were not correct. It was shown that Dimmick had been cashier before he was appointed chief clerk of the mint, and as such was familiar with the locks, especially with the upper lock. There were nine witnesses who testified that they had seen Dimmick at this lock, looking at its parts, removing the hammer of the lock, and examining its interior in 1898 and 1899, while he was cashier. Dimmick testified that he opened the lock only three times, once after an illness, in order to change his combination, and once later, because his numbers were so close as to make an interference between the tumblers of the lock; and once thereafter to oil the lock. At one of the former trials Dimmick testified that he had repeated occasions to oil the lock; at the last trial, that he oiled the lock only once. The testimony of the prosecution was to the effect that he took the back plate off over 25 times, and that it was unnecessary to remove the plate in setting up a new combination.

When Cole was installed as cashier, the testimony shows that the superintendent instructed Dimmick to have Major Noggle, of the mint, who understood the business, or some locksmith change the combination for Mr. Cole. Noggle was in the room, and offered to assist the cashier in changing the lock, but Dimmick had previously offered his services, and himself changed the combination for Cole. Cole testified that the first thing Dimmick did was to take off the back plate, and then he told Cole to pass him his number, giving an extra turn to the dial; that the effect of the extra turn was to throw out one of the numbers of the combination and reduce it to a three combination instead of four. Then Dimmick told him that the fourth number was a fixed number, 15. The testimony of Cole and Fitzpatrick was to the effect that Dimmick was engaged for two or three days, an hour or so at a time, in making these changes in the combination; that he stood before the lock with its back plate removed. Dimmick testified that he took off the back plate in order to line up the tumblers with his lead pencil; that when he first entered the mint as cashier, a locksmith was there and took off the back plate to change his combination, and lined up the tumblers with a lead pencil. We quote from the testimony of Dimmick: 'The dial on this upper lock is peculiar in the fact that the numbers are mixed-- that is, they do not run consecutively-- and on the first time turning I turned a little too far to catch my number, and in putting up the combination in that way I told him I had turned past the number. He said, 'Very well, we will fix that,' and with that he asked for a screwdriver, took off the back plate, and lined up the tumblers. * * * Q. I want to know from you whether it...