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

Davis. So he got out the note and
chucked it in your faces, and asked you to look
at the pin holes in it This is what / term
'Shepards pin hole argument" He shook this
note and said: Look here, will you See these
pin holes in this note! Don't that prove to you
that T. A. w. Davis pinned l., B. e. w. bonds
or certificates to 1T" / don't expect it does. /
will tell you what think it does prove John
c. Wright swore to you that he got as collateral
on that note certificate No. 612 for 100 shares of
the stock of the First National Bank. Let me
see if we may not possibly inda some PIN
holes that correspond to Shepard's pin holes
in the Davis note. Gentlemen, here is certificate
No. 6l2 exhibiting certifcate) to John c. Wright
from William III. Morrison, transfer
ring 100 shares of First National
Bank stock. And now, if you will
look along the top of this certificate 6l2 you will
see pln-hoies, indicating that the certificate OF
stock has been doubled up and pinned to some
other paper. Now, don't that come great deal
nearer to corroborating Mr.. Wright than itooes
to corroborating Mr.. Davis? happen to be the
attorney who foreclosed and reorganiZed that
road, and happen to know that it was about a
year and quarter after this $14, $50 Davis note
was given before any bonds were issued.
Inc mortgage was not made for
he pinned the bonds to that note Mr. Nc
Cutcheon swears that thoseI. B. & w. securities
were pinned to note of Davis for $l7, 900,
cuted over year after this transaction and he
brings the note here and shows it to you That
ment. But he and Ketcham both say that there
is something mysterious about the $500 900 trust
matter that they cannot fathom. Mr.. Nc
Cutcheon and Mr.. New both stated clearly
everything about that transaction. 1t is utterly
lmmaterial to this case; but still, since plain
tlffs have lugged it in, We had it carefully and
thoroughly explained The evidence shows just
how VIM. Fl. English got his whole pay for the
!.b22 shares of stock. In the first place, on July
IL, John G. New paid him $97 800 in cash. How
did he IT. WhV he ii nv N his
note for $30, 600 in bank and his brothers note
for $50, 600 in bank Mr. New then went to New
York and made arrangements for the rest of the
money with which to pay English, but the strike
as promised, and, therefore went to
Mr.. Wright and asked him to take
an in terest in this stock with him. Mr. Wright
did so. and on the 2lst day of July Mr. Wright
paid SIS, 900 to John G. New, which Mr.. New
put on to Mr.. Englishs credit on his bank book.
That is the second payment made to Mr.. English.
Then it stood in that way until the 9th day of
August, when John c. Wright discounted his
note for $45, 900 in the bank, and that money
went to Mr. English. That paid up for Mr..
Wrights share In that stock. On the same day
Mr. Now discounted his note for $50 800 and
that money went to Mr.. English; and, the
same day, John c. New gave his personal check
to Mr.. English for So $50 These checks and the
bank books all show these facts. Now, $3.50 900
of this stock, or !, 900 shares at $3.50 per share,
had been put into the trust authorized by the
resolution of August 3, 1877. That same day,
and on that deposit which was counted that day
as money-not entered in the ledger stock ac-
count until the next day-$60, 900, was placed to
the credit of Mr.. English That made the $3.50.
520-$60, 900 Of credit given to Mr.. English by
reason of the $l60, 900 of stock, check for
s., $50, note of Mr.. New $50, $50, the note of Mr.
Wright, $40, 900, and the note of Mr.. Wright,
So 00O and cash from Mr. New, $97. 300 These
payments make exactly the amount paid Eng
lish for his 1,622 shares of stock.
At this hour, court took a recess till P. NJ.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. BUTLER (resumng)-As we closed, at
dinner time, had just stated the evidence that
completely reconciles the matter of the $780,
600 of stock account carried in trust from
August until September 20, 1877. Now, | did
not do that because that has any bearing OF this
case. because it has none. l only went into it
to explain it. because the other side seem to
consider that every thing ever done byor in this
bank must be reviewed as bearing on this case
have shown you there was no wrong done in
the matter of the 1000 shares held, for time,
by the bank, and afterwards paid for by New
and Wright not because it is material in this
case or touches any issue in the case, because it
does not; but simply to show you that plaintiffs
counsel are misstatilg the case.
The next point | want to call your attention
to is this: Mr. Shepard stated that there had
been no explanation of why the per cent re-
demption fund remained unadiusted; that the
$50, g. and that, therefore, that amount
ought to have been charged off, and that account
settled 1t is in positive proof, and uncontra-
dicted by Mr.. Morrison's own letters to the
Comptroller of the Currency, that the five per
cent fund account was not adjusted until away
along in 1879. l would stop and read those
letters, except that have to refer to them in
another connection, and when | do [ want your
minds to come back to this point and recollect
that now say to you that the FIVE per cent
redemDtlOO fund account not adjusted until
we'll along in 1879 But they say 'why that is
only small account anyway, and it ought to be
easily settled and adjusted" Now just see how
very absurd such a statement as that is Per-
NIT me to call your attention to letter, put in
evidence, from the Comptroller of the Currency
to John G. New in October, 1871 Plaintiffs
counsel try to make you believe that John c.
New did not 60 to Washington and make an
arrangement with the Comptroller of the
Currency in regard to carrying this shortage
He went sin September, and got back. you
remember, the day before Slaughter resigned
and that day was the 18th of September. AS
soon as he came back he had transcript or
dered from Washington of their end of the &C
count. You all understand, long before this,
what the five per cent. fund is: 1t is the five
per cent. on its circulation that the bank was
obliged to keep on deposit in Washipeton; but it
could keep as much more on deposit there as it
pleased, and it was customary to stack up funds
into that account That account was made up
by sending on mutilated currency, worn -out cur.
rency of their own or of other banks and currency
that they wanted for any reason to exchange for
new bills. The government kept one end of the
account and the bank kept the other. The bank
could not tell what the government had charged
for torn off from bill, nor could it tell
what items were charged against the bank by the
government for expenses, express charges, etc.
The bank here did not undertake TO adjudcate
how much should be discounted for piece torn off
bill; nor did it undertake TO adjust other charges
Consequently, there were always unadjusted
balances between the bank and the government
Mr. New put in evidence this letter, which is
Exhibit No. 35.' | am not going to read it: it
is too long but I am going to call your attention
to part of it. 1t is full of figures: it
gives the government end of the &C
count 1t commences away back in
1876 and shows that there were unadjusted.
matters dated away back in 1876. I want to call
your attention now to one particular point in the
letter. Items credited by the bank and not
charged by the agency" that is. by the redemp.