New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-22
THE UNION BANK DEFALCATION
CASE OF JACOB II. MOTT.

The complaint against Jacob H. Mott aud Frederick
X Brotl erson charged with consprng to deraud the
Union Bank of $l4l 600 after an examination running
through two days the evidence for the prosecution
came up again before Recorder Barnard on Saturday
afternoon last, the motion of Charles Ga Nun, ESQ.,,
counsel for the defendant, that Mott should be dis
charged on the ground that the People had not proven
enough to hold him.
Before proceeding to argument Mr. Ga Nun remark
ed to exvige Foote counsel for the prosecution that
he would be obliged to HIN if he would state tue pro-
visions Of the statute on which he proposed to rely to
hold Mr.. Mott, as such an understanding . advance
would very much facilitate the discussion. After look
III at the authorities, the counsel for the Peon.e
Piled that his opinion was that the die ndant could be
held under either Of the cxing sections of the Re-
yised Statutes: Ser So pss6l secs. ), and OIL p.
and sec. ;, p 874; and he relied upon either or
y of .hose sections to hold him.
The Recorder here suggested his opinion to be- that
the only crime for which Mott could be held was for
conspiracy to embezzle, though he had not yet OK
sDLed the subject as carefully as ne Intended TO do.
Mr.. Ga Nun then rose to address the Court in sup
port Of his motion in a speech of over two hours IN
length, and running into great multiplicity OF de-
tail.
Tho following however, presents an abstrsct of his
principal points:
There was no testimony going TO show that
moneys had been embezzled by any agent Of the
bank, and ifthere were no conspiracy the conse-
queLces could not attach to Mott. 1t was not pre-
tended that Brotherson embezzled money, and 1t he
did and transferred it to Mott, tnen the accused
would be guilty; but there was no evidence Of that.
There was pretense or evidence that there was any
sort Of agreement between Mott and Brotherson;
nothing but an acquaintance had been established.
If the charge amounted to anything, 1t was an
executed conspiracy, and therefore 1t was merged into
another ofense. II seemed to the speaker that an
institution like the Union Bank, who gave the name Of
Jacob H. Mott if not to inamy at least TO notOrety
it seemed TO him that their counsel ought to
krow what offenss had been committed. A,
the Union Bank was not proven 70 be cor
pOrate institution, it did not come within the
statutory definition Of the word person" and
hence 10 property could be lost. When an accused
party was charged with an Infamous crime, nothing
should be taken for granted. lie tthe speaker did
rot know but that the Union Bank welded great nhu
erce, but in the country where he hailed from the
same Observance 10 the laws was exscted from corpo
ra,ions as from individuals Mr. Motifs character and
standing in the community were irreproachable his
ancestors owning the soil Of Manhattan Island before
New-York was Incorporated. His good character IN
lhe Ulion Bank even-thst jewel bank and model OF
good orderwas not questioned tor he was one OF the
few fayOrite individuals who had been invited 70 par
take of wire and oysteIs at the election Of officers
The evidence Of Mr. Arthur, which the counsel read,
he maintained all hearssy, and totally unreliable
lie ntimated that Mr. Arthur was fast man, ana ia
not Dossess logical mind. The Union Bank was not
euiGed and regulated should be for the interests
vi society when it was in the hands OF men whose
minds constituted like those OF Messrs Artnur
Smith ard X issam. Who ever heard OF such state
Of things existing in wellregulated institution as
was disclosed in this case How does the Union Bank
stand in this community with these disclosures staring
hem in the face with the ability on their part to Ok
plain them IT, said the counsel the ofiicers oil !@
bank were prosecuting for the benefit OF the peo2e,
Liz course might be justified. l am endeavorS
in the same connection to do the peopse soMe
seryice. How does it happen that the hset
examination made BY the two clerks was meie
by the direction Of this man Arthur now does
t'hsppen that they were not Instructed 70 make
general examination and tjld TO look into the books
10 see where frauds had been committed but were
,od 10 nly look into the account OF Jacob ii. M0tf
By what divine sagscty or It may he criminal knoSf
edge cid be know upon what account to put ais ugef
10 tLd tLese frauds He tAithur) knew more about
The affairs Of this institosiOn than many supposed.
The cepositors of these three millions daily, said the
peaker had better look 10 IL 10 es who has charge of
then funds The only legal eviden6 against Mott
reie checks and tickets, and they weN not offered.
Nor were the books legal evidence, and t was eyi-
6srt that they had not been correctly kept for num-
Der OF YEAR,. The testimony Of al the attaches Of the
bsIk vac IF such q LatuIe as that Of common
serse would rely upon il. II did not follow that be-
cause cbscks were presented purportng have been
gred by Jacob Il. Mott that be was confederate
u BGc,bsrson the abscondine defaultsr who might
very eAslly have forged Mr.. Motifs name the Off
eers Of The baLk Lsruced by ca to produce
'he books but they dAe not 90 1t. They know from
81 eIsuiIstlOr-ard | know from moral evidence.
said the spesker-ihat al the checks We're 10, Jacoo
II. ho,ts
to;s csse disccses any ofense agains. the crinna
AVS q this State, the proof must chow good reaeon
70 otheve tast money, personsl property, or o'oer
sa1sos thug bes been obtained ifofe soms Pe,s"a
o. booy iLolndej by tae .tasute a'hn tee 's-.-''
q psr..a" o. sVus fsss aleu. "ti:ss. " ~ Son'