The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-01-19

Mr. Jsudon was Cashier Of the Bank IN the early
part of 1896. had n conversation with Mr.. Bdde
about year after he resigned, about these 4OOOOO
and again tn. same subject about seven menths'
ago He asked me re .pecting them, and appeared
to be ignorant of their existence. He did not say
he knew nothing about them exactly, nor DO re-
collect precisely what he did say. ] never spoke
to Mr. Jaudon in reference to them. think ! told
him Mr.. Andrews got this amount. as he said, ON
his (Mr. Bisde's) orders. He did not deny-out
1 cannot give the details of our conversations.
The crosse EXAMINATION of these witnesses was
conducted principally by Mr.. Cadwaliader, !he
counsel of Mr. Jaadon, and elected thelact that the
only ticket memorandum On which money had
been paid, as stated on the previous examinations
Connecting Mr. Jaudon with these payments charg
este permans mt expenses" was one winch antho'
rised payment to Mr.. Frazier, Cashier ei the
Branch at Louisville, and that this payment was
made under resolution of the Board Of Directors
The extra compensation claimed by him while
agent in Europe, which was first dishcnored by
the Directors, was subsequently, recognized oy
them and the amount placed TO his credit
The res, Of the cross examination was chiefly IN
troduced to establish the proposition that the acts
for which the defendants were now arraigned,
were known to and approved by the Board OF Di
rectors. and had also been published to the Stock
holders at their meetings, by various committees,
besides being entered in the account books Of the
Bank, and thus placed within the observation OF
all who desired to inform themselves OF the condi'
ton OF the Institution and tho conduct of its Off
GERS.
Here Mr.. Cadwalader closed his examination OF
the witness.
Mr.. Read then called the witness attention to
the monthly statement, lst May, 1886 sent to far-
rsburg, and pa ticuiary as to the amount OF bonus
and permanent expenses of the month then set
down, and compared them with similar charges IN
several ucceeding months: the object Of which
was to show that these published statements com.
pared exactly with the accounts on the book, and
that the losses showed progressive increase.
BY Mr.. Meredith The settlement wi h Mr..
Bidde as to the sale Of the Branches was final
By Mr.. Kane-l know the sums receipted for by
Mr.. Dunlap never reached his hands.
Mr.. Brewster was about asking some further
questions, when the Recorde inquired if the de.
fence ha closed the cross examination being an
swered in the affirmative, he replied that the pro.
secution need not proceed further, that he had
made up his mind to his ourse and il the parties
| had any thing to say he would now hear it.
| Mr.. CADwALLADER said he was the junior coun-
sci, and it might be expected that he should speak
but he did not wish to take up the public time and
| with the exception that the defendants withdrew
the proposition made at the commencement of the
investigation, asserting to binding over, he had
nothing to say.
The Recorder then read his decision in the eae,
On the 9th day of January, Austin Montgomery
| came before me; made the necessary oath charging
| Nicholas Biddle, Samuel Jaudon, Joseph Cowper.
| thwaite, Thos. Dunlap, and John Andrews, with a
conspiracy to cheat and defraud the stockholders
| of the United States Bank of Penns lvania.
Process was issued and served, and at 3 O'Clock,
| NJ Bidde, S. Jauden, and T. Duslap came and de.
sired to be bound over TO Court forth with. This
was refused. They then entered bail in $4,000
fer their appearance the 18th of January, for q
hearing. The following day Mr.. Andrews sent to
inform me that indisposition prevented his personal
| appearance, and entered bail in like sum. The
next day Mr.. Cowperthwait came in custody, and
| entered bail in the former case.
On the 18th of January, the defendants all APP
peared. J. M Read, Esq counsel, with N. Bid
de- on behalf Of his client and the other defend
ants, asked, after the first witness sworn,
and before examination had been entered into
to give bail for their appearance at the Court Of
General Sessions TO this proposition ! requested
to be informed il the defendants admitted or con-
ceded that sufficient probable cause existed on
which TO found the binding over.
After consultation with his colleagues, he re
marked that the defendants were willing to b'
bound over, but denied that sufficient grounds ex
isted, and was unwilling to coneede their exist
ence Tor the purpose desired.
The counsel for the prose were willing
that the course suggested should be adopted, so fa
| as their clients were interested.
l then decided what still have reason to belle v,
is correct in law, that no magistrate can legally
bind over any person or persons charged with
criminal offence, without probable cause being Ell
Their admitted conceded by the party or partie
defendant; or its existence being proved on oatl
| by the persen or persons making the charge. Tn
necessary prere quisite for binding over is proba
bic for the act, end magistrate cannot Know
| OF the fact without its admission, or due proof.
|
the warrant issues, has partly falfllcd its office
the decision of the magistrate to grant the process
the residue of its duty is to protect the magistrat
in the exercise of his prerogative.
The next step is to ascertain il the charge b
well founded or in other words, if there exist
probable cause for sending the party charged wit
the offence, to trial bv his peer.
In the case of the United States VS.. Burr, " Pro
battle caus :" is defined to be "a case made on b.
proof furnishing COED reason that the crime allege
has been committed, by the party charged" Sc
case Of U s. VS.. Burr.
II was to ascertain this, to inform my conscience
of its existence that required this hearing to pro
coed To omit doing this, would have been aci in,
contrary 10 my duty, taking for granted that whic
did not know and which was neither proved ne
conceded In any case, but especially in one o
this magnitude, such course would have beer
cupable.
ihave thought il proper TO state my views thu
at large On this point, so that if have erred il
iud gment, or in law, it may be corrected
What was stated at the beginning OF the presen
inquiry, l now repeat, that have no desire to d.
any thing BY word, or act to prejudice the case o
the defend ants-e eonsci entieus belief IN the cor
rectness sfthe course pursued, alone influence M
in its adoption-this desire still remains with me.
| Lest, therefore, \ should do what desire 4
avoid, have deemed it best neither to colate tn
strong facts in the case, which the decision II
regard to it rests nor to sum up or express an op,
| Mon on the character or weight oil the testimon.
adduced in support Of the charge.
1t is only necessary TO say that the evidence ha
created in nv mad !" COED reason to believe tina
the crime alleged had been committed by the per
sons charged" With this shall content myself
The law points out means to re wise, correct,ovcr
rule, or confirm this conclusion.
Like the humblest citizen, the defendants are en-
titled TO fair and impartial trial. and if any act o
mine, consistent with the duty Of public officer
can tend in the remotest degree to this end, II vii
be cause of qualification, not only to myself, bu
to all good citizens II they are innocent, they
will be acquitted if guilty, punished
There may be others, whose acts in connection
with the property of the Stockholders Of this
Bank. require scrutiny-but as they have not beer
called upon 20 answer, and consider that 1T is nc
part of my duty 70 originate proceedings, but sim
DIV eonfne myself to the case before me-those
who feel that justice has been disregarded, have !
mode whereby TO vindicate her laws, and thei
rights.