en who knew
Stener--who were pleasantly eliminated.

By twelve o'clock, however, a jury reasonably satisfactory to both sides
had been chosen.

Chapter XLI

At two o'clock sharp Dennis Shannon, as district attorney, began his
opening address. He stated in a very simple, kindly way--for he had a
most engaging manner--that the indictment as here presented charged Mr.
Frank A. Cowperwood, who was sitting at the table inside the jury-rail,
first with larceny, second with embezzlement, third with larceny as
bailee, and fourth with embezzlement of a certain sum of money--a
specific sum, to wit, sixty thousand dollars--on a check given him
(drawn to his order) October 9, 1871, which was intended to reimburse
him for a certain number of certificates of city loan, which he as
agent or bailee of the check was supposed to have purchased for the
city sinking-fund on the order of the city treasurer (under some form of
agreement which had been in existence between them, and which had
been in force for some time)--said fund being intended to take up
such certificates as they might mature in the hands of holders and be
presented for payment--for which purpose, however, the check in question
had never been used.

"Now, gentlemen," said Mr. Shannon, very quietly, "before we go into
this very simple question of whether Mr. Cowperwood did or did not on
the date in question get from the city treasurer sixty thousand dollars,
for which he made no honest return, let me explain to you just what
the people mean when they charge him first with larceny, second with
embezzlement, third with larceny as bailee, and fourth with embezzlement
on a check. Now, as you see, there are four counts here, as we lawyers
term them, and the reason there are four counts is as follows: A man may
be guilty of larceny and embezzlement at the same time, or of larceny or
embezzlement separately, and without being guilty of the other, and the
district attorney representing the people might be uncertain, not that
he was not guilty of both, but that it might not be possible to present
the evidence under one count, so as to insure his adequate punishment
for a crime which in a way involved both. In such cases, gentlemen, it
is customary to indict a man under separate counts, as has been done
in this case. Now, the four counts in this case, in a way, overlap and
confirm each other, and it will be your duty, after we have explained
their nature and character