The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-16
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT.
The Case of Charles Calender.
Before Commissioner Osborn.

The Case of Charles Calender.
Before Commissioner Osborn.
The United States vs.. Charles Callender.-Ye ester.
cay this case, details OF which have been so fire.
guently published IN the HERALD, was summed up
BY counsel on both sides
Mr.. William Fullerton, counsel for Mr. Calender,
addressed the Court at some length, contendlng, IN
The course OF his argument, that the language OF
the act under which the defendant was charged
Indicate That there should ne a conviction OF the
gver, q pr0miser oil a briDe to public oilicer or
person holding place OF public trust, for the pur-
pose Of influencing his Official action, before the
1alter could be committed or punished for receiv-
there was the TACT that the defendant IN the exa
mination ne had made Of the bank did not do an
Onclal act because the act OF examination was not
complete without his report and no report was
made by the defendant, that being ODvlated Dy the
officers OF The bank, who, ut the request Of the Comp
uoller OF the Currency, made report confirming
the examination instituted by the defendant Mr..
Calender mad not stated ANYTHING that was not
bank to the defendant there could be nothing I'm
proper in that because ne had deposited with them
coatcrais TO secure that loan. On the whole case
counsel commended that Inc defendant ought 10 be
discharged.
the part OF the government. He contended that the
net under which the complaint was brought created
o. brbe 70 pGec ocep e gver o 81 ap ser
public officer who receives bride, gilt valuable
consideration for the purpose Of Influencing his ON
ctal act. the 0f1enccS were not joined; they were
separate aid distinct; but the punishment OF the
oicer who LOOK BRIDE was to be greater than that
Of the gver Of II, Tor he was to be after
uered incapable. by such an act. OF holding any
place under the government 1t was cOntended by
counsel on the other side that Mr.. Calender, In
making The examination OF the bank, at the re-
quest OF one OF the directors, did an Oflcial
act-that ne did not make any report to the govern
ment; but why mad ne been awarded $lOOp Because
ne mad mace the examination the very thing he
was bound TO do in his official capacity. and 1t
needed no report 10 complete that act an official
ac- Besldes whether he made the report at the re-
quest OF director OF the bank or not,
made no matter; that request had no
effect, SO far the mere consequences OF tile
act were concerned Counsel argued tnat the certi-
hcatiOn by the bank OF checks " u considerable
amount for Mr.. Calendar upon OanKs where he had
not dollar 10 his credit went to show improper
nature OF the transaction, especially when II was
considered that the securities advanced by the de-
tendant as cOlaterals were sucn wOud be
accepted from any one except q bank examiner by
any bank, being third mortgage bonds, the first
mortgage bonds OF the same stock being not worth
more than from forty TO seventy cents the dollar.
This statement was strongly denied by Messrs.
The District Attorney went 10 argue that
the statement made by the defendant 10 the
ditiOn OF the AFFAIRS OF the Ocean Bank was calcu-
ated TO deceive the mercantile community as to its
soundness ana concluded by ealing on the Com
missioner To send the defendant for trial.
The Commissioner reserved his decision, which
viii probably be rendered Oh Wednesdav or Thurs
day.