The New York herald., 1851-08-07
THE OXFORD BANK CASE
The sum ming Up OF Counsel.
Before Just ice Mountfort.

The summ ming Up OF Counsel.
Before Justice Mountfort
July 80 The People, attke Complaint Of R15sr,
Barba, agai~x n1ilSs 4. Bradley, for Ottaini",
Money uader False Prdences.-Atter sundry ad-
journnents and postponements, this day was ike
upon for the summing up There was but on
having expressed his determination not to atseni
On that day, but, on a subsequent one, to presenI
the case for the prosecution, having been already
wearied, with the RIotracted case, beyond what
Mr.. Theodore Romeyn then proceeded to sum
mp for the defence. He said-In any observations
shall feel it my duty to make in this case, hall
endeavor to elicit the simple truth, and certain
y shall not allow myself to use any personalities
against Mr.. Barber, beyond what may result from
fearless examination of the facts Of the case and
their application to the parties. II Mr. Barber's
testimony be true, then my client Mr.. Bradley, has
undoubtedly been guilty Of O crime II is my duty,
and it shall be my object to show tha his testim ony
is UNIV orthy of credit. Bradley is charged with
last, 800 in bank bills, by false representation;
that he had heretofore deposited $4,000 in the
hands Of stephen Barton, Jr., for the purchase of
the stock of the Oxford Bank, on joint account Of
Barber and himself 1t is also charged that he ex-
hibited ut the same time, forged receipt OF Bar
ton for the $4,000 1t is further charged that he
afterwards falsely represented that he had expended
$1,000 more in purchasing said stock, and thereby
obtained further sum Of $500 from Barber.
This was at first said to have been advanced in
q check; afterwards it was said to have been in
bank bills. Barber asserts further that he let
Bradley have 81 800 or 500. Bradley denies the
such receipt, and states that Barber at first ad-
vanced to him 300; then on the 2ls. Of October,
g. 700 more, in money, and S., 800 in check, max
ing in all $500, for which, on the 18th Of Oc-
tober, he gave receipt. He AYERS that this was
the sum total Of Barbcrs advances, Of which S. 900
were put into the hands Of Barton, who afterwards
settled with Barber The amounts advanced, and
the representations on which they were procured,
are the matters in controversy. Barber has made
his complaint, Bradley his statement, at length,
and witnesses have been examined. Now, the ma
gstrate is to be satisfied from an examination ofthe
whole matter, that an offence has been committed,
and that there is probable cause for charging the
defendant Herewith. q Rev. ST. 109.) Here
there ia no evidence whatever, except BARRIERS tes-
timony, to show either that an offence has been
committed, or that Bradley is guilty. All rests on
Barber's own statement. If that statement be in
itself improbable, or self-contradictory, or IT II be
contradicted by other witnesses in any important
particular, then it should be rejected. The de-
1endant contends
First That the accuse lion of Barber should be
received and viewed with great distrust, from the
time and circumstances Of its being made; because,
ia tho rst place. Barber knew, easly in January, all
the alleged facts on which he now makes MS charge.
He knew the fraud by Bradey's own confession.
lie knew all about the securities received from
Bradley, yet he took no steps in relation to the
matter. On the other hand, Bradley, knowing that
Barber was here, voluntarily to confront hun.
He commenced a civil suit against him. for con-
verting the securities in which he is now under
arrest for $50, 900, and had him arrested also on
criminal charge. Here thore was no skulkling;
nothing like the conduct OF a man that was con-
scous Of guilt Barber, under these circumstances,
offered to give up all the securities, and todischarge
Bradley from all claims, for the sum Of $1,000.
When that proposition failed, he made this charge,
which nobody heard before, AID which rests on his
statement alone. do not ask you 10 reject II on
this ground, but It Is reason why 1t should be
closely scanned and scrutinized.
My second proposition is, that this charge, So
suspiciously brought forward, is in itself most
improbable, and totally unworthy OF credit. ae,o.d
ing to the story told by Barber himself lie says he
him by Captain Converse. subsequently Converse
told him that Bradley had deceived him, (Con-
verse; Yet what is Mr.. BaIber's conversation,
Immediately after, with Bradley! Bradley, he
ssys, talks Of purchasing a. bank and issuing
Largo number Of noteg, and making money, aud
then letting the bank take care oil itself. Barber
tells us he scoutcd this idea OF Bradcy's; yet he
goes on with the arrangement, and advances 1i,JOO
20 carry il out letting Bradley be tho sole ncgota-
tor while be stays In New York. ON repre- sentaton
that the bank would cost 10000, he fets Bradley
have his half OF that amount, namely, sI;JvO, with
out dcduc,ing the 81 300 he had previously ad,ans
ter that Bradley asks for ~ 800 more, az neee sary
10 complete the purchase; and though Barber finds
Il difficult to give him that sum, and has to drawa
check for il late in the afternoon, he docs not de-
duct the 81 300 from that either, nor take any
voucher. Docs your honor believe that Mr.. Barber
would advance these two sums without voucher!
Look at the reason assigned by MIR. Barber for the
course. lie says:-" did not take voucher Tor thc
last s2 5O0 bccassc that was tn, closing OF the bu-
sncss, and had advanced my share. \ CT, when
he believed the 81 200 was his share, he took
voucher. Why did he take il in the one case, and
not take IL in the other! The only voucher he
has Is for ~ 800, which We aimit. But even With
regard TO that, he says it was given on the 2ls o
October; yet We find. on looking at the docu.
mcnt, that II l. dated on the gta OF October.
rrt sof1 10 haxq bepn ma hu-
cause Bradley, on bis application, exhibited re.
coipt of Bartons for 10000, and yet Barber took
no copy or memorandum Of It, Next we are in
formed Bradley comes back ron W,t n.nSlnna., n's
his det cton is certain, and there, in room, the
parties being by themselves, makes iull eontes-
sion. Without that confession there y no proof OF
the falsy Of pretencc, ior where .ne PROOF ,nst
$1,000 had not been put ur in tho handa o. Bar
toni The absurdity Of Bradlcy going TO worcester.
20 represent himself as svindcr aud i9rger, u
too palpabe fot credencc by any rational mind;
and, after all this, he s still represented as owing
$4,000. Why, IL is n most extraordinary story
iiut this is not all-Bradley puts 2s,0Ol in the
hands of Barbcr 10000 being the securities ofhs
own bank, and ii9coVthe securities OF others, just
ms IL Bradley, already owing 5000, would increase
his indebtedness 10000 moro The whole story,
ifnot contradicted by Barber himself, is mpcoba-
bic, and unworthy Of credit. II Is most singulor
piece Of invention. My proposition i that tn
story L. unworthy Of credit, from alterations mad,
in il by Barber duritg the progress OF the examine
ton, and after he ives convicted Of a misstatcmcnt
10y extracts from the books OF Adams \ Co sexpress.
Now. your honor, Bradley admits having re .civcd,
fret 81 300 and then. on the 2lst October. S3,Ip
in cash. and $500 in n check. making IN all,
$500, for which, on the 2nth October. he gave
ono voucher or receipt, which is The only one that
Rarbor has produced such Is BTallcy's statement.
Air. Eager, on the rart Of the prosecution, sub
itted that counsel could not refer 10 the statement
OF Bradley net being sworn To-
MIR. Romcyn oOntended that ms client hld a
right TO explain and he had right to refer 10 that
explanation. 80 ,-,..,
cused was not evidence for him, ana could ne only
reed as testimony whom put IN ~ the District
Attorney o A tho trial. But counsel might nov re
ier 10 IL az his explanation W. 6o 'Jesa i9s vas
IL js voftb.