The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-24


whether the defendants guilty or not
Of totally different de- crpton. He thought the
jury had better con6ne their attention 70 the charges IN
the first four Of the indictment, though there
other counts, respecting conspiracy Sc The first
set forth that the defendants tho bank
and agents Of Dr.. Griffith, By whom they we're en-
trusted with certain valuable securities therein mention
ed for safe custody and that, Notwithstanding, they,
without any authority, sold and converted the same to
their nse, contrary to their duty aRd trust Re-
spectipg a good deal Of that statement there no
doubt but tho question for the jury to decide was
their trust II they did they were guilty OF the mis-
demeanor which was charged against them in the in.
dctm.nt, and the punishment for which provided
was the question to be determined. No doubt
there WAS great difference In the cases Of the
three defendants. Against sir J. D. Paul the
pressed hardly than sgsinst the other two and
against Mr. Strahan hardly, perhaps, than against
Mr. Bates. That was the order probably, in which
guilt innocence. The learned judge here recsptuaed
the evidence Of Dr. Griffith with reference To the IS
arose. and said the jury would have to consider whether
not they could reasonably infer that the transaction
that took place in reference to those bonds were such
ON their nature partners in the me bank must he
cognigant Of had been proved that those bonds hsd
been purchased for DR.. Grith aud left with the dee
ed by their amounts dates and numbers II did not ap
pear whether Or. Griffith had ever them, but tina
was not material for not necessary that he shoul
Griffith stated that he transacted his business almost
solely with Mr. Bates and that he never received thu
in the custody Of these bonds the interest for which h.
had carried to his account every halyear and that
sell or convert them to their own use Alter tho ap
plcaon at Bow-street, Mr.. Strahan called on DR.
Grinth and admitting that some securities had been
disposed Of added that 1t the fret dishonest act OF
his lie. That observation however, referred to the
Danish bonds subsequently purchased and subst
toned in the present Indictment Mr. Srahans counsel
had told the jury that they must take this
into consideration and conclude from thai Mr. Strahan
nfnfa ing
done by another in reference to the securities However
he Br. Baron Aderson) must tell the jury that they
not bound believe either the whole any par
Of The statement made by Mr. Strahan that occasion
They must take it into their fair consideration Of
the circumstances in the and Mr. Strahan
certainly incorrect In saying that that was the first
fraudulent transaction on his part he we're party 10
the OF 1854 unless he salved his conscience
by the notion that reparation made Tor thai
which before was a wrong act that the wrong had
been removed by the subsequent substitution OF res
bonds was just possible for persons to take that view
Of their conduct but the law did not The jury entire
to Judge that matter and here he would observe cha
the statements put in for the purpose Of making dis
cllsuIe showed that Dr. Griffith had been loser to
ger amount than the 600 Danish bond
in question, The check for f12 228 which paid Ia
bank notes dated March 10, 1854, which agree
with the items in Sir J. D. PauPs private account.
clerk of Foster Brathwaite received the bonds FROM
Mr. Peate, and there could be doubt, from The mum
bers and amounts of the bonds sold, that among them
were those brought by the firm in 1851 FIR DR.. Griths
deposited by him in their hauds for safe custody, and
safely Kept BY them up to that time These bonds WI
~
subject Of epre-ent charge. There could be douo
as against Sir J. D. Paul-waiving for moment the
question whether the disclosure before the Court 81
Bank rnpcy were answer to the present chargeth4
clear cft against the statute had been committed
III dsposiDg Of these Danish bonds ntrusted to hs'
for safe custody This clear breach Of trust on
his part, which breach of trust in banker pun
ishabe as a misdemsanor by the 18th and ssh Georg
w. chap. 20. He should not have considered II
sary carry the any further but evidence haa
been called to show that the bonds were sold to
Messrs. Rothscbid, Cohen. and other parties, that
that the defendants had ceased to have any property
whatever In the bonds thus sold by Foster and Braith
Or. Gifhs' credit then the gentleman had been called
who negotiated this loan and who proved that every
bond had distinct number, the conclusion being tina
these Danish bonds individual things, which
not to be replaced by other bonds Of equal value There
being, then. clear against Sir j. d. Paul. unless
he had absoved himself the disclosure the next ques
the transaction partner cyily RESPONSE Die for
the acts Of his copartners Aud ~hyy Re ;ause by an
agreement between him and his copartner he Jns
tuted agent for all acts done in pursuance Of the part
rershp for his copartner He was therefore, cvily
Of his copartner but he responsible and
could not be held resp nble for any asst done by his
partner cmipay because no man could constitute a1o
Their his agent to do criminal act without his personally
cesIl him to do IT, or acting with him In carrying Il
into effect He was only criminaily Responsible
took part in the transactions, and therefore the
jury would ave to look not merely to the
question of whether strahan and Bates were partner
in the concern, but also to whether they could te
considered being parties TO the criminal act Of sir
John Dean Paul in selling the bonds in question they
not proved to their satisfaction to have been in
state of what called completely" with Sir John
Team Paul in the act with which he charged, God
forbid that they should he held punishable for his crmi
nal conduct When the jury came TO take the In
onEideIntion they could not however, altogether leave
out The circumstance OF their being partners because
partners they might have knowledge Of the nature
the business which going and for the jury
TO say whether being partners and having the means
knowing the circumstances we're such as induced them
to believe that the defendants did know and privy
to the fraudulent transaction which formed the subject
Of the present charge. What the circumstance
when were calculated to lead to the inference OF III,
guilty compicity OF all the partnersS In The frs,
place, there the money which brought to the
bank nom the sale OF the bonds by Messrs, Fostes
and Brai,hwaite and the aggregate amount Of which
was placed to the credit Of the private account
Of Sir John Dean Paul. He would not eontena
hss T ss thought rs ss. would sy naa
bow, and under what circumstances, SUN Of
fl2, eco or more came to be placed TO the private
told that the securities Of DR. Griffith KEEP in thu
srorg room there appea, ed to doubt tina
s T ma Up r ae obsr
tuted for them until the month Of June Did people
never walk into their strong rooms, know what IN
them or did they not look after the securities deposited
with them they not presumed to look after the
removal OF portion Of these secarities The defend
ant; ants had The means Of knowing the S a.
ciIcumstancess Then there the circumstance that
afterwards tie whole Of the defendants made sateme
the 600 Danish Five per Cents deposited with Messr
Cvereno Quincy Co.. on the 30th Of April, 1855,
followed ty flo,ooo Three per Cents belonging TO y
Griffith. sold by Messrs Foster h Brahwaite the
14h March, 1854. But thing said of the e5 CO.,
being sold in the first instance. They stated the fac
partial SALE bit they did not state the whole Of
1t. Lid they know the whole transaction, or par
cnlys If they knew the whole, why was 1t that NJ
thing was SAID about the first ssley Or did they hi
that the SUBJ ttution of set Of bonds for the ot
took away the fraudulent character OF the first
tisnf One part Of the perhaps not strong
against the defendant Bates. He did state IN his
animation that he knew Of his own knowledge of the sale
deposit Of tiles, had any thing TO With lem
While the other defendants in their separate exam lions
spoke OF securities pledged converted by meS date
only spoke of securities pledged converted by any
either CT n.y. partners With regard 10 Strah m there
was the Circumstance to 20 taken into consideration q
his statement to Dr. Griffith, which had been urged
negaiivng 10 extent the fact Of his knowledgc Of
the first transaction. This circumstance In toe
proper for the consideration Of the jury. The
dence showed that the act Of selling the securities he
act Of Sir j. D. Paul. bu, If the jury satisfied thu oct
doIe with the knowledge and consent OF the other
defendants and Cor the purposes Of the firm they
equally guilty Of the charge. The jury would consider,
oil the opportunities which Stahan aI his