The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-11-19
THE BROOKS TRIAL.
ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL YEsTER-
DAY.
ELABORATE INSTRUCTIONS oFrHE COURT
The Case with tho Jury-No Verdict
Yet.

The Case with tho Jury-No vertiic,
Yet.
The evidence In the case Of Mr.. T. T
Brooks, indicted by the United States Cour
for numerous violations of the national cur
rency act while president Of the Merchants
National Bank, Of Petersburg, having beer
concluded on Tuesday afternoon, argument
was commenced yesterday morning. The
public interest all along manifested in the
trial was much increased Us the end ap
preached. and was sufficient TO fi!l the court
room with large crowd Of spectators, in.
lcludlnS many of the most prominent bust.
ness men of Richmond and Petersburg
Judges Bond and Hughes having ascended
the bench, and the jurors having taken their
places, Ex-Governor Lowe, of Iowa, who
was sent here by the Department oil
Justice to aid the District.Attorney in the
prosecution, made the opening argument
He spoke for two hours, and carefully went
over the testimony, and clearly explained
the law governing the case. Captain John
! Lyon, Of counsel for the defence, followed
Judge Lowe, and critically examined the
thirty.three counts of the indictment, and
step by step reviewed the evidence produced
for the Government and his own side. AT
| the conclusion Of Captain Lyons argument,
which occupied the same time as Judge
Loves, the court (about 81 o'clock) took q
recess until Al O'Clock.
At the evening session Ex-Governor 81.
Il. Wells and Major Charles S. Stringfellow,
like Captain Lyon, addressed the court and
jury with great ability and eloquence-the
former for an hour and half, the latter for
half an hour. Dstrct.Attorney L. L. Lewis
closed in an effort Of nearly two hours
length, in which every prominent phase of
the evidence, and all the legal points involved
were thoroughly discussed.
| No accused in this court was ever repre-
sented with more earnestness and assiduity,
or by more powerful appeals or greater dis
play of learning; while, on the other hand,
| the cause of the Government was presented
| with conspicuous force and determination.
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.
Judge Bond delivered the charge of the
court to the jury, as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury,-The Court would
call your attention with more than usual
| earncstness 10 the very great Importance Of
the case you are to determine by your YER
| dict.
1t has been the object of the Government
of the United States to give to the people a
perfectly safe and sufficient system of bank.
ing-a system which the poor and rich, those
engaged in trade, and all others, should rely
on with perfect security. To this end the
statute under which this indictment was
drawn was enacted, and to this end the par
ticular section which has been read to you
has prohibited the doing of those particular.
acts which the experience of those engaged
in banking, and the history of broken banks,
show to be the acts which cause the ruin OF
banks and the losses of those who trust
them and deal with them.
For the first time in this district, so far as
| remember, jury is charged with the duty
of vindicating this law, and seeing that the
benev olent and wise purpose of the Govern.
ment shall not be frustrated.
Ard while this TRAILS Of great Importance
in this respect, it is of equal importance to
the traverser, whose reputation, and liberty
even, are at stake upon your verdict.
The Court. calls yaslr attention to these
facts, not that your minds may be excited to
do wrong or any violence to The testimony
in order to vindicate the law or to punish or
acquit the traverser, but that, considering
the great Importance of your verdict to the
community and to the party charged, you
may we'll weigh and consider the testimony
in the case, and apply the law of the case to
it with impartial justice without fear or
favor.
The ftty-ffth section forbids the president
of national bank from assigning any note,
draft, or bin of exchange, without the au-
thority Of the directors, with intent to in-
lure and defraud the bank. This the ira.
yerser is charged with in the 18th, 18th,
and 10Th counts.
The object of this prohibitory clause in
the law was to prevent the bank from incur
ring any liability which was not incurred by
the consent Of those who alone could make
the association or bank responsible. The
Board of Directors is charged by law with
the conduct of the affairs of the bank, and
the law forbids any officer of the AsSocia-
1iou to assign any note or draft, as such oti-
Ger. without their consent. 1t is only neces-
sary Tor the Court, to enable you to apply
this law to the facts Of this case, to say TO
YOU the word assign means to write his name
upon a note or draft, in his official capacity,
so that the bank became liable for it. 1t is
only necessary to show that the bank actu-
ally paid the assigned paper to make the
trayerser liable under this count. 1t is only
necessary to show that, SO far as his act was
concerned, the bank was liable.
And when the statute says this shall not
he done without the authority of the direc-
tors, it means the directors acting as board
in their official capacity; and, to eXcupate
the accused, it is not sufficient to show
that individual members Of the Board, sepa-
rately, at their places of business, when not
called together as a board, agreed to the as.
signment, or that the directors individually
! had knowledge that the president was in the
habit of making such assignments.
The 55th section likewise forbids the pre-
sident of bank to abstract any of the mo-
news. funds, or credits of the association. IL
is only necessary to inform you that un-
| der the 1st, 2Stb, 31st, 33d, 10th, lGtb,.
and Sth (7) counts, which charge the de-
fendant with abstracting the particular iunds
set out in those counts, it IS necessary 70
show that the trayerser did traudulenlly
withdraw and remove from its proper Gus
tody the moneys or chooses in action specl-
fed in the several counts. There Is no par
ticular mode of abstraction necessary to con-
stitute the offence. The purity may be shown
to have actually laid bis hands upon the
property or money abstracted, or ne may
be shown to have got at it by deceit ana
fraud from the hands of subordinate over
whom he had control. 1t is necessary tnae
the abstraction should be done fraudulently,
and the property abstracted must nave Deen
that of the bank aud in its custody. lt Is
not necessary, however, to show that tne
party charged applied the property to ms
own use. The thing charged as criminal IS
the fraudulent abstraction, and not, unaer
these counts. the misapplication OF the PRO-
perty. ,.,.:- fo.