The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12

juryperforming its sworn duty whenit goes to its
Jury-room and says we will find John G. Wright
a perjurer, when there is not only no evidence
IN conflict with his evidence, but when ne is cor
rooorated in every statement he makes
by Mr. Morrison's own hand writing on
these exhibits or by John Il. Ketchams hand
writings John c. New testfes that he told Mr..
Morrison ali that he knew about the bank, and
told him truly, just as he understood it, the con-
dition of that bank, without evasion and without
coloring that ne told him about the Miller and
Slaughter losses, item by item; and about the
seven thirty United States bonds claim and
about the bad notes and the bad judgments, and
told him, as he examined the assets one by one:
''You must decide values for yourself on your
own Judgment When they came to the judg
meuts. Mr.. Morrison questioned Mr. New, and he
told him all he knew about them. Sometimes
New would say: II think part of that will be
good" or Il think that is all bad, or Il think
this is good" but you must Judge for yourself"
Now. is it true or false that John G. New told
Mr. Morrison these things and showed him the
assats and liabilities of the bankl Who swears
that he did notl No one. What circumstance
in evidence tends to prove that he did noti Not
one. This is vital point in this case. Plaintiffs
must prove, by clear preponderance of evidence,
that New and Wright made false. and fraudulent
representations, and did not with Mr. Morrison,
examine the assets and liabilities OF the bank,
and did not tell him truly its condition, or they
must fail.
Now. has John c. New sworn falsely on that
subject! What single witness has sworn to a
single statement of John c. News that did NOT
turn out to be exactly true2 What single paper
is brought into this case, either by them or by
us. that fails to affirmatively corroborate John
Z. News What witness, what memorandum,
what paper tends to show that John c. New did
not truthfully tell Mr. Morrison all he knew
about this bankl Where did all the facts in these
memorandums, in evidence in this case, come
from if there was no investigation of this bankl
Who is John G. New! Shepard and ketcham
say he not to be believed; that he has perjured
Self-inSf ha
and Bates, and English, and Lynch, and Nc
Cutcheon and Wright. Who is John 9. Newt
How does he stand in this community as
compared with F. A. W. Davis and John IL
Ketchaml Is he not as good they arel Is
not his reputation as good as therss Who
ever breathed breath against the lnteg-
rity and honor of John G. New! What witness
ever impeached him in the slightest degreei
+. A W. Davis swears he went with New to
Wright's block with part OF the assets OF this
bank, and New and Wright botn swear he did
not There is the only conflict there is to John
c. News testimony in this whole case What
are the probabilities as to that / say to You,
gentlemen, of the jury, when You weigh the cir
cumstances F. A. W. Davis will go to the beam
quicker than wink. Why would they go three
blocks up to Wrights office, into public office,
when John c. New-as is proved
most clearly and positively, and without
any contradicton-ha private office a stones
throw from the bankl But again, and the
strangest thing in it all, Is that +. A. w. Davis
inaton, and that he went with New that day
and made partial examination, and made an
arrangement to complete it, but from that hour
he never went near the bank; never a sked to
complete it; never said word about completing
the examination, and suffered this purchase OF
stock to be made without having completed his
examination, and he swears to you it has been a
mystery in his own mind from that day to this
how that happened.
Mr. KETcHAM-You asked the Court to strike
out the mystery" part Of it, and the Court
struck it OUT and you ought not after striking it
out, refer to it, The Court struck it out, and
you will remember that he said I'VE do not
want any more mystery in this case than we
can help"
Mr.. BUTLER--If the Court struck it out will
strike it out l said it. and it is
but will strike it out But, gentlemen, mys.
terry or no mystery, he did swear that he never
went near Mr.. New afterwards, and never asked
him to complete the examinations; and now.
whether he said anything aaout mystery or
not will ask you: Is not that mysterousl
You saw these men and heard them testify: you
looked them in the face while they were testify
ing, and there s no better criterion in the world
to Judge a witness by than his actions on the
witness stand. Look into his eyes, study his
face: see him-as you saw Mr. Davis when
paper was put before him that he did not expect
to see--stop. hesitate, work his mouth and lips.
and mouth something to himself for a full min
ute before answering question; remember hlS
hestating. bewildered manner when he first saw
exhibit 'BB, p" and then look at the fact that the
circumstance he swears to is absolutely absurd
and improbable Who has contradicted John c.
New aside from f. A. w. DavsY No one. And
who is he9 He is a mani do not care where he
was born or raised-who has q reputation both
inside aud outside of Indiana-a reputation that
may we'll be called national. Two different
Presidents of the United States have called John
c. New to positions of high trust and
responsibility. He voluntarily retired from both of
those positions against the wishes of the Presi
dents who placed him in them County clerk of
Marion county, quartermaster in the army,
private clerk to Governor Morton cashier of the
First National Bank ten years. Treasurer of the
United States, president of the First National
Bank Assistant Secretary Of the Treasury OF the
United States. and yet he is scoundrel. accord
ing to plaintiffs counsel. No breath against him;
no conflict as to any material point in his testi-
mony. Nothing against him except the vitupera-
ton and innuendoes Of plaintiffs counsel, uDsup.
ported by evidence. Are you going to dispose OF
the evidence of witnesses by listening to the
wanton abuse of them by counsel, or are you
going to weigh it according to the rules OF evil
dences?
But, gentlemen. if on this vital question the
evidence of John c. New and John c. Wright
were dotted ont, if they had not testified at all
still the facts proved by plaintiffs furnish abund-
ant evidence to support the proposition that Mr.
Morrison made full examination of this bank,
and bought the stock relying upon his own judg-
ment
Did John c. McCutcheon tell all that he knew
truly to Mr.. Morrison in regard to the defalca-
tionss Who swears that he did not! Nobody.
He swears that he did; but plaintiffs counsel say
that John G. McCutcheon is felon and per-
jured man On what groundl Simply because
they know their case is hopeless unless they can
get the jury on their improved assertions to hold
that John G. McCutcheon has deliberately lied
His testimony alone is fatal to their case. and
they know it; consequently, having no witnesses
against him. and having him corroborated by
every circumstance and fact in the whole case,
they come before this jury and say we want you,
without evidence to believe that John c. Nc
Cutcheon is perjured felon Who is hel Mr..
William H. English is tolerabiy fair judge
of human nature. John McCutcheon is
the treasured assistant and cashier of the pres
ent First National Bank, under William II.
English, as president He was cashier of the
old hank nd MnrriSon all he Of Morris