, 1877-11-18

| any account, and who, knowing the extreme
| difficulty of convicting Of perjury, feel that
in no case will the personal liberty Of their
clients be placed in jeopardy.
The conviction of RoDERv L. CASE, Presl-
dent Of the Security Life-1nsurance Com
| pany in New York, ON q charge of perjury
may help to correct public opinion on this
subject. Mr.. Case is 63 years Of age, and,
| before this trial, had borne an unblemished
! reputation. As President of the Security
| Company he attached his name to q sworn
| statement of the assets of the Company
| which was fraudulent in many items,
and intended to deceive the In
surance Department and the public.
The Company was credited in the state
| ment with S175,00o cash in bank,
whereas it had but 5000; its real estate,
which was bought in 1875 for $4,000, was
put in at $+50,000; worthless agents &C.
counts were used to swell the assets, and
other frauds were perpetrated, SO that the
Company, which was 1000, GOO in arrears.
was represented as being III d solvent condi-
ton. The defense set up on behalf of A1-.
CASE was that he had no personal knowledge
Of the affairs of the Company, but was
merely respectable fgure-head, whose du-
ties were limited to drawing his salary of
$4,000 per annum. The lawyer for the de-
fense, in his extremity, went SO far as to say
that his client had lapsed into condi-
ton of senility, and was not COM
| petent to understand complicated business
affairs. The prosecution maintained that
it was preposterons to say that A1r. CASE,
who had been Director in the Bowery Sav-
ings Bank, and one Of the incorporators Of
the Security Company, could be ignorant of
the falschoods contained in the statement Of
the Company; and that, admitting his ;gno-
rance, :he defense was not sound In this
connection, Judge DAVIS, of the Oyer and
Terminer Court, who presided, said:
As to the prisoners claim that he was ignorant Of
the alsity OF the report, il he swore a. within his
own knowledge to facts which he neither knew nor
had reason to believe the subject covered he was
not 10 TIC projected. ANY officer Of an insurance
company or bank who Is required BY law to make
statement Of the condition Of his nstitution suf-
fers himself make oath to statement which is,
iii fact false in respect to its assets without lnves
tIgatlon which he is able to make from the records
which ure constantly under his eye and control, his
oath Is not only moral perjury, but all men could
clearly sec it was legal perjury. Whether he knew
the statements false, OF made them rccklcssly
without knowledge, it Was willsu1ly false state
ment within the law.
The Jury, utter being out half an hour, re-
turned Il verdict OF guilty, and Mr.. CASE Was
remanded for sentence. 4 motion for d new
trial will be made Tuesday, and, if it be not
granted, sentence will then be pronounced.
AL important feature Of this case was the
part played in it by the Notary Public before
whom the oath WAS taken. He testified
that, to the best Of his knowledge and be-
lief, defendant was sworn- An attempt was
made BY the counsel of the latter to show
that the oath wss not administered. The
Cour. called attention to the essential char
acter of this dispute, advising the jury that
an oath lawfully administered is requisite IN
a charge of perjury. ''The signing of m
affidavit which afterwards receives the sig
nature of All officer authorized to administer
an oath, and is afterwards used in a legal
proceeding, does not constitute perjury. The
oath must be actually administered. If the
jury has any reasonable doubt whether
an oath was administered, they must acquit."
The jury in this instance preferred the tes-
timony of the Notary to that of the officers Of
the Company other than Mr.. CASE who are
under indictment, and On this ground !
brought in their verdict. But, whatever the |
practice may have been in the Security Com
pany, it is true that many large corporations |
keep Notaries as convenient shields against |
the penalties Of perjury. These Notaries are |
required, and consent for small extra fee, |
to atix their seals to documents that hare
not been sworn to. The practice is not in- |
frequent in Cook County, where the Grand |
Juries have been confronted with precisely |
this divided responsibility as between an mp |
parent perjurer and m unfalthful Notary |
There IS manifestly here q defect in the law, t
for, so long US it is possible by collusion of |
this description to make apparent afidavits
that will answer ali the purposes Of real ones,
no confidence can be placed in any published
statements concerning vast financial interests.
Some penalty in addition to the one which at |
present exists ought to be provided for the |
wrongful at1ixing OF the notarial seal, Us we'll |
rs for the signing of forms of affida7its in-
tended to deceive.
The convictlon Of Mr.. CASE will unques-
tionably have wholesome effect upon the /
community in which he resides. 1t ought
to induce the heads Of insurance companies
aud similar corporations which stand in
hduciary relation to the public to be careful
how they carelessly sign Statements for pub
hcatiou. The position of such officials is
peculiarly responsible. Their knowledge of
the affairs Of their companies Is taken fo4,
granted. If it were not. their testimony to
the financial condition would he valueless
The excuse Of ignorance is for them worse
than none. It is confession OF inhdelity
ouly less serious than actual nlalversation of
funds. The Inv. holds, and the Courts are
disposed to hold, that such ignorance is
criminal and, when a few officials have
been punished for it as they deserve, no
doubt it will be found less widely prevalent,
NJ, nnrishmanf TINT +ha Law. ,,orp,;+c ~, l.. |