The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1859-11-29

The particulars Of the decision Of the Ph9nl1
Bank case, which was lately argued by Attorney
General Howard, are quoted below from the New
Yo,k Tribune We have before published re-
por, Of the case, showing the grounds OF the &C
ton, bu, the judicial opinion, as reported, gives
the whole merits Of the case.
The Detroit Free Press has covered the At
torney General with all manner Of aspersiOn, from
time to time, because the law courts, as they are
wont to do, have taken their own time in which
TO decide.
The decision of the Phoenix Bank case is an
other triumph Of Mr.. Attorney Howard-a double
triumph-frst a. lawyer, and second as politi-
clan, because he was sought to be laughed down
BY clique of the Michigan Bar for daring to in
stitute the suit and sought to be written down
and sandered down by the Locofoco press, for
daring to impugn the standing of "their first
men" Mr. Howard, a. is usual with him, trusted
to his legal conclusions made himself sure Of his
proofs, by investigation and careful research, and
relied upon his powers Of argument to carry the
minds Of the tribunal to his proposed result. On
this he has succeeded, while during the entire
course Of the two trials, from first to last, with
hardly the intermission Of q week. ne has been
as.aed by his eneuies with unfounded and paltry
charges, unworthy 70 be brought against a man
whom the masses Of Michigan know to be above
an act OF meanness. Ia these regards, il is fit to
say that the result Of the Phoenix Bank trial has
been a double triumph. Such are its effects
upon him, personally and politically, while the
people Of the State are benefited by the exercise
Of his legal sagacity his stern official integrity,
and his unshrinking fearessness for the return Of
some forty-seven thousand dollars distracted
from the State Treasury by dishonest servants.
There is a further poiut NOT to be lost sight Of
in this matter-the recovery is not simply tech
nical, but covers the entire merits claimed by the
Attorney General even to the greatest moral and
equitable extent; and these merits are all admit
ted by the decision of the court. This circum-
stance, while it ADDS brilliancy to the victory,
furnishes a just source of consolation to
some editors and not a few politicians
Of the LocOfocO school, who havo expressed a
wish from time tn time that this money might be
refunded to the Treasury if it could only be done
without defrauding the Bank, or without placing
certain prominent men in wrong light. Say the
Court, the Bank is not dsfrauded. and the prom
inent men are in the right light SO may the
matter end. The Tribune says
The charges in the complaint are that after the
passage BY the Legislature Of Michigan Of the act
of s37, authorizing loan of s., 0O0, 900 for In.
ternal Improvement, ,thc Phoenix Bank advanced
to Governor Mason $4,000 in the drafts of the
Bank Of the River Raisin, and Farmers and Me-
chanics' Bank, Detroit, which banks had then
suspended specie payments; that this advance
was in fact private loan to Governor Mason, but
charged by the Phoenix Bank to the State of
Michigan, who refused to pay it. In 1910, the
Phoenix Bank authorized Charles Stewart to settle
the claim with the Banks against which the drafts
we're drawn. Settlements were made with the
Michigan Banks, but the claim for the amount of
the two drafts was still urged agaidst Michigan.
The validity of the claim was not recognized by
the Legislature Of that State, and in 1854 the de-
PENDANTS applied to the Board nf State Auditors
whose business was to settle private claims
against the State-for the amount of drafts and
interest. In December Of the same year the Au-
ditOrs allowed the claim, and the defendants re-
ceived on account from the State the sum of $685.
Goa IS. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants
did not fully state the facts of the before the
Board of Auditors; that they neglected to show
the settlements with the two Michigan Banks,
but stated on the contrary that the PhTnix Bank
had never been repaid a dollar. After the dis
cOyery Of the facts in relation TO the previous
payment and settlement Of the drafts, the Attor-
ney -General of Michigan, on the 9th of May,
1885, demanded the money of the defendants,
which they refused to pay. This action was then
commenced in the Supreme Court of this city,
and on the trial al Special Term judgment was
rendered for the plaintiffs. Subsequently the
General Term Set the Judgment aside, and order
ed a new trial. The case was tried before Judge
Bosworth few weeks ago. and on Saturday he
rendered Judgment for the plaintiffs. Messrs
Howard and JerneSan for plaintiffs; Mcssrs. Van
Wilde and Cutting for defendants.
The following is the opinion in the case
BoswoRrH, Z. 1.-The decision OF tho Board
OF State Auditors Of the State of Michigan made
on the I'd day Of December, 1854, TO the effect
that said Phoenix Bank was justly and equitably
entitled to the sum of S3S, T03 -, for principal
and interest upon the claim of the Ph9niX Bank
against the State of Michigan, for an advance of
$500, on State bonds, delivered to John Nor
ton, Jr., Cashier of the Farmers and Mechanics
Bank (of Detroit, Mich. by order of Gov. Mason,
for the of said State, March Is, 1888, 10 con-
trary to law. equity, and good conscience, and is
null and void, as having been procured by the
fraudulent practices and concealments stated in
the complaint; and the defendants are liable and
ought to refund to the plaintiffs the said sum of
$S5,6Os "a, with interest from the 4th day of
December, 1854, the day when that sum, in pur-
suance and satisfaction Of that decision, WAS paid
by the plaintiffs to the defendant, which said sum
and interest amount, at this date to 81 1854 81.
The plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment. accor-
dinghy, against the defendants, and for said sum
Ct $i7,954 "a, together with the costs of this
action.