The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-27
THE OCEAN BANK CASE.

The OCEAN BANK CASE.
Trial OF Cauender-The Testimony ON
Both Sides ClOsed-Summing UP of
Counsel.
The further hearing OF the case Of Charles Cal
lender was resumed yesterday In the United States
Circuit Court before Judge Benedict.
THEODORE N. DAVIS RECALLED
Theodore M. Davis. the receiver OF the ocean
National Bank, was recalled. He said he knew
Hiram p. Crosby did not know where he resided;
probably he had had conversation with him about
the bonds of the Portage Lake Company in 1872.
Mr. Fullerton offered to prove that the witness
stated to Mr. Crosby the value OF the bonds in 1872
che witness having previously stated that the
bonds were utterly worthless.
Wltness-I never stated that they were utterly
worthless.
O. BY Mr.. Fullerton-Did you make statement
to Mr. Crosby, in 1872 as to the value of any issue
Of the Portage Lake bonds?
The question was ruled out.
Witness--I have sold at auction some of the
bonds Of the first issue and some of the Decatur,
Sullivan and MatoOn bonds; cannot say that
have talked with Mr. Crosby about the value OF the
first pond in 1871; do not think that we talked
about the second issue; we talked about the
bonds, the value Of the.fourth issue of the bonds;
think we spoke Of the value OF the bonds as it
stood in 1872.
Mr.. Fullerton said the defence of Calender rem
dered it necessary to show that the bonds had an
Intrinsic value.
The Court said counsel would be permitted to
prove that Mr.. Davis, the receiver made state
ment anywhere as to the value of the bonds in
1871. because he had testified as to their value in
1871.
MIR. Fullerton-I want to show what the judg.
ment of the witness in 1872 was TO the value OF
the bonds, not what they were worth in 1872, but
what the witness said he thought they were worth
In his judgment. There was forced sale OF the
bonds: there was depreciation of them in the
market by Mr.. Davis, who tried to interfere with
negotiations to sell the bonds in Europe, so that
he and his friends should have them. He (Alr.
Fullerton, would like to develop the whole thing,
and If he could do that he thought that his client
was beyond the reach Of those who were seeking
his destruction.
Mr.. Purdy replied that they should not wander
OF into other issues. Mr.. Davis was not on trial,
and his action in this case was not TO be investi-
gated. 1t was not Davis but Calender who vas
on trial.
The Court observed that the action of Mr. Davis
should not be introduced for the purpose OF en-
barrassng the case. He would charge that. even
If the bonds were deprecated by the action of MIR.
Davis. that was not question the jury had to de-
termlne. The question was If Calender did not
report the circumstances OF the bank from which
he borrowed money. knowing its condition. That
would be matter for the jury to take into considera-
tton.
the Ocean National Bank IN January, 1872, were
better than they were IN October, 1871.
Mr.. Fullerton offered to put In evidence paper
or circular, signed by Mr. Davis as receiver of the
Ocean Bank, in which an estimate was given in
chances Of their being realized. The Circular was vas
dated in January, 1872. He had been then only
short time receiver. and the hgures were given as
q mere guess at the estimated value OF the bonds
and securities.
Mr.. Fullerton offered in evidence a certified copy
OF the report made by the Ocean Bank on the 4th
OF October. 1871 to the Comptroller OF the Currency.
He desired to show that the Comptroller knew all
about the condition OF the bank.
The COurt-That is not the question. The dues-
ton is, what was the action OF Calender
Mr.. Fulerton-He is charged with not making
Calender at that time knew that the bank had
made a report to the Comptroller, and l ask
whether that should not be considered a good
reason why report was not made by him. His
omission to make one. must be regarded as
entirely consistent with his innocence.
MI. Purdy-lf that argument Is good there is no
necessity at all for bank examiner. Mr.. Callen.
province not to allow the Comptroller to be de-
ceived by the statement or the bank. If the pub
be no use in the employment Of bank examiners.
Mr.. Calender neglected his duty by not making
fun and true report upon the actual condition OF
Mr.. Fullerton-The bank made full and de.
tailed statement to the Comptroller. and, there
fore, any report on the part OF Mr.. Calender
(who knew that such report had been made
would have been work OF supererogation The
Comptroller OF the Currency knew, from the re-
port OF the bank, all about the Portage Lake
ponds. On question OF motive this paper Is ad-
INVISIBLE.
Mr. Purdy-Callender could have shown that the
securities in the bank were not available, and that
he had got "a loan OF $4,000.
Alter considerable discussion Judge Benedict ad.
mitted the report as evidence, holding, however,
that It's admission must be subject to Callenders
knowing of It's transmission to the Comptroller on
or before the 18th OF October 1871 the date when he
had his last transaction with the ocean Bank. It
was not shown, however, that MIR. Calender pos
sessed such knowledge, but as the report had been
identified by a witness for the prosecution, the
Judge observed that he would admit the report.
Several witnesses were then examined for the
defence including Mr. John r. Williams, President
OF the Metropolitan National Bank MIR. John
Thompson, Vice President OF the First National
Bank; Judge M. b. Field, Mr.. Charles J. Everett
Central National Bank Mr. Thompson stated
that he had loaned Calender $4,000 on Portage
Lake bonds. and that he had sold some OF the bonds
enough TO make the loan good. Mi. Callender's
character, In his Judgment, was good Till the
Field testified to the good character of Mr. Cal.
lender Mr.. Wheelock deposed that he knew Mr..
Calender since his appointment as pank ex-
aminer In 1866 or 1867; his character before the
failure OF the Ocean Bank was good he made loans
to Mr.. Calender from 1867 down to 1871: the
securities were portage Lake bonds and the notes
OF Alfred Wild, whom he (witness) had known in
the drm of Gardner Co.; knew Mr.. Wild to have
gone out of that firm with 100000.
The evidence on both sides having closed Mr..
Fullerton said he was willing to let the case 20 to
the jury on the charge OF the Juage, without any
summing up of counsel out Mr.. Purdy did not feel
disposed to accept this proposition.
SUMMING UP FOR THE DEFENCE.
Mr.. Fullerton then proceeded to sum up on the
The Judge informed counsel, in the hope OF
saving time in the argument, that he would charge
enc Jury that the examination made bv Calender