The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-29

UtEu
assets of the First Nationa! Bank aC The time of
the sale of the stock. The jury found that the
stock was worth dollar for dollar, and that the
premium paid was in excess of ITS true value
at that time. As the purchaser made a
full examination of the same, it is
not necessary to extend that inquiry any
further. Let it be admitted that the condition
of the bank was bad, and that books were not
kept as they should have been, and that the
reports of their condition were not such as the
truth would require them to be- and that they
carried on the books, as cash, the Slaughter and
Miller defalcation-this is only one branch of
the case that 1t was necessary for the plaintiffs
to establish, as have said and the force of that
IS entirely destroyed in law by showing that
Morrison knew of the truth in relation to
the same Besides, it is clearly shown that Mr..
Morrison was entirely satisfied with the con-
dltlon and declared to the government
officials at Washington, and to the stockholders
and deposltors of the bank in a statement he
made and issued to them the 9th day of
September 1878 nearly seven months after the
purchase 1t clearly appears that he was sat
ished with the purchase that he had made; and
1t may be said that the testimony shows no COM
plant on his part to the defendants, though
they remained with him in the bank for a time,
nor to any officer of the bank associated with
him. nor to the bank examiner though he lived
for more than three years after the sale. |
think 1t unnecessary to examine further into
the condition of the bank. 1t will be observed
tAo1 III COullUS 10 Inc COnCluSlOUS UdV0 OU bu0
evidence, | have omitted all mention of the
testimony of the defendants. New and Wright,
and have not taken their evidence given on the
trial into consideration. I have not omitted to
consider their testimony because have found
reasons which required me to do so. The ver-
dict is not sustained by the evidence if the
defendants testimony was out of the case. It
Is true they are parties to the suit and largely
interested in the result; the same may be said
of every party to every lawsuit. If they are not
interested they are generally not proper parties,
and party's testimony is not to be disregarded
troversy The law does not suppose that
all men are unworthy of belief unless
they have no interest whatever in the matter
about which they are called to testify. The
plaintiffs have the same interest in the result of
the suit. Whatever the defendants lose by the
suit the plaintiffs would gain. 1t is no answer to
say that the plaintiffs deeply in debt, and
would have to pay their debts out of the
recovery. 1t ought to interest party some
what to be able to pay his debts, and remove a
liability that will remain and prevent the future
accumulation of property. These are matters
that may and should be taken into considera-
tion i'll weighing the testimony of all the parties.
But, fortunately, in this case we are not met
with such serious conflicts in the statements of
the witnesses, which often shock the court and
jury. Perhaps there was never a case of this
magnitude tried in which there was as little con-
fiict. The few conflicts which arose did not bear
upon the great controlling questions in the case.
| can, and do dispose of this case without first
having to determine that somebody has
mitted perjury, and is unworthy of belief.
There is very good reason why the testimony of
New and Wright is entitled to weight, and
worthy of credit Upon all the important ques-
tions upon which they testified they are sup
ported by other and dsinterested testimony
and some of it, as l have said of the most con-
elusive character Their testimony on the
question of the purchase of the stock,
that the Indiana Banking Company was
not the purchaser. is corroborated by
all the papers in the case Morrison's statements
in writing, and his declaration to Messrs Holli-
day and Bates, and the other testimony upon
that question to which l have heretofore re-
ferred. Their evidence on the question as to
whether Morrison made an examination of the
assets of the bank is supported by other evidence
that establishes that fact, if testimony can make
anything certain in court of justice. Their
testimony that Morrison told of the Slaugh-
ter and Miller defalcations Is clearly and
abundantly confirmed by the written evidence
in the case There are other instances in which
they have similar support, but the ones have
named are the most notable and quite satisfy
me that no reason exists for rejecting their evil
dence. 1t was intimated in argument that this
was a good jury, and that this court had so rec
commended 1t to both PARTIES that the court said
thatit had done good service at the May term, and
therefore, that the court should, with more than
ordinary care. consider the question of disturb
ing the verdict. l did so say 1t was asgood jury,
and did most acceptable service; yet do not fol-
low counsel to their conclusion that the verdict
is entitled to any greater consideration on that
account. 1t must be disposed of like any other
case. do not feel that am required to account
for the verdict the result is all l have to deal
with. But will say that in my opinion, if the
jury had been instructed fully upon the law ap-
pcable to the case and been permitted to apply
it, and return general verdict, a result would
have been reached more in accordance with
the law. A demand for a special
verdict prevented such instructions on the law.
When it is considered that the jury sat here
many weeks hearing the evidence, and when we
consider its character, and they not permitted
to make note of it, and then, under a demand
for special verdict, sent to their room with
nothing but that great mass of testimony, anu
without any guide or direction of any kind on
the law from the court any verdict ought not
to be a surprise. No jury could prepare good
verdict of its own under such circumstances.
A jury is legal and proper adjunct of the
court in the administration of justice,
and | regard it valuable one, and endeavor
to bear it constantly in mind that the court
should not enter the domain of the jury yet the
court cannot relieve itself of its duty under the
law with reference to verdicts. | incline to the
belief rather, that the danger lies in the other
direction-not that of disturbing the verdicts of
juries, but rather in approving of them in a
perfunctory way.
The verdict in this cause is in my opinion.
upon the points I have considered, not supported
by the evidence, but is contrary thereto, and is
contrary to law. There are other questions yet
remaining that | perhaps ought to consider
prominent among them is the question Of the
statute of limitations. But l will not protract
this opinion to consider or decide them. as
new trial must be awarded in any event
have not taken the time to quote from, or cite
the authorities in support of the principles of
law have announced. I can see no good pur-
pose in doing so, as this is not the final DISPOSE
ton of the cause.
have been reminded in argument that the
amount in controversy is large, the case
one of great Importance, and admonished that
responsibility The principles of law do not
vary, as do the amounts in verdicts. AS to the
responsibility, can admit but one-the re-
sponsibility of being right.
In this case the evidence removes it from the
region Of all doubt, and makes my duty so clear
that antar unnn its discharga without hesita