Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-10-29

Jfefense. He said that his client had been
hounded by the press, by financial men
and by members of a prominent family,
but the jury had only to consider the evil
dence and render a verdict accordingly. |
Mr.. Fish, he said, went on the stand as a |
not responsible witness, and it was the |
first time that convict was called to tes- |
tify against a prisoner in the Court OF |
Oyer and Terminer. Fish was a convict, |
and his condition when sworn as witness |
prevented his being liable for perjury, or |
anything else less than murder. Fish |
comes here animated by venom, swears TO |
anything that comes into his mead, and |
being utterly irresponsible, he knows that |
he cannot be held responsible. He testi-
fed to try to send Ward to prison. He is
probably working for a pardon by making
Ward the scspegoat. In 1882 the bank
was in difficulties, and Fists testimony
could not be considered without corrobo-
rative testimony. Upon the evidence a
verdict of guilty was impossible. In the
letter of March 30, 1884, Fish said to Ward
that his troubles were too much for him.
Fish was continually soliciting Ward for
help.
WILLIAM S. WARNER,
who had entered the room during the re-
marks of the lawyers, was then called to
the stand for the defense. He testified
that he knew Ward, and recognized the
check for 81, 800, which he had received
in the ordinary course of business. After
certifcation by the Marine Bank it was
deposited in the American Exchange Bank.
Ga ncross-exsmination, Warner said that
he had received the check in Wards pri-
vate Office, and at the time he hsd with
| him the obligations on which the money
was due. The amount was the profit on
certain investments with Grant & Ward
| on government contracts. The witness
could not remember the form of the OBJ
| legation, but it was due on that day MAY
| 5, 1884. The difference due on the in
vestments resulted in bis getting the
check for S7l 800. All the contracts were
made direct with Ward in his private
| office. On May 9Th he received a con-
| tract for a much larger sum than 81 800,
which only represented the profit on the
| old transaction. Mr.. Warner did not know
| where the contracts were, but thought
that possibly he had some in his posses
| sion.
JULIEN T. DAVIES,
the receiver of the firm of Grant & Ward,
| next testified that he took possession of
the assets of the firm of Grant & Ward on
May 8, 1884 He had partial list of the
| securities of the firm, which were found in
boxes in the Bankers Safe Deposit Com
pany, which plaosths witness had visited
in the company Of q. S. Grant, jr. He
did not know taevalue Of the securities,
\ and could nS0 = ,s,Smes- of tha- parties
| who had brought suits about them, so
| great was their number. Some OF the Sc
curities had been delivered TO their own
ers on their paying the loans for which
they had been pledged. Others were
| valuelesS, and some we're awaiting dis
posal by direction of The court. OF the
$4,000 in bonds of the Buffalo and New
| York railroad, Senator Chaffee and Re-
ceiver johnson Of the Marine Bank both
claimed them. Benjamin Fish also
claimed some bonds, and five were deliv-
cred to him by order of the court. In one
package where 12s bonds should have been
III were found to be missing. He had
I foun,. 500 in the office on taking posses
sion, and the "AnA account was over
drawn.
The assignment of Grant & Ward was
offered in evidence.
| wA. G. SAITH
testified that between May I'd and hay
5th he had been negotiating loans for the
firm of Grant Il Ward, but did not know
what became of the money realized. He
| could not approximate the amount OF
loans made by the firm between the dates
mentioned. He was the representative OF
the firm on the Stock Exchange and also
knew James D. Fish. This witness virtu-
ally closed the case for the defense.
TRACY's PROPOSITION.
Gen. Tracy offered to allow the Jury to
| test whether or not one could use the tele-
phone and another standing by him could
| distinguish voices.
George S. Spencer was called to the stand
by the District Attorney, but added moth
ing new to the testimony previously given.
Gen. Tracy asked the District Attorney
l to elect upon which count he decided to
Z leave to the jury.
1--WE elect the second and fourth counts, u
+, said the District Attorney.
"Then," said Gen. Tracy, 81 move the
acquittal of Ward, as the evidence does
not bear out the indictment. Ward did not
which the indictment was based. He gave
| it in the usual business way"
The court denied the motion.
GEN. TRACY
| summed up the evidence for the defense
s laving particular stress upon the fact tha
s Fish, as q convict, was not amenable Il
) any penalty for perjury, and holding tina
/ he wss urged on by vindictive hatred o
J. | the accused.
= Col. Fellows summed up for the State
II contrasting the actions OF Ward and Flsi
/ at the time of the failure. The former raj
e away, the latter awaited the catastrophe
& like man.
81 JUDGE BARRETT
# began his charge at 80 O'Clock. He de
fined the law, and read the statute cover
ing the crime charged. The question wa
:, | as to whether the defendant had an inten
II to defraud, and of such character as u
l. deceive a person of ordinary prudence
'e Had Ward procured the S7l, 800 in such
= wayP The whole case rested on one poln
q Did Ward obtain the certification Of tn
e ST. 800 check? 1t was for the Jury to de
a. eide on the evidence of James d. Fish an
J. his brother, the evidence of neither bein
i contradicted. Ward was not alone o.
| trial, but Justice, too, was on trial. Publl
d clamor should not influence the jury, an
'e last of all, money should not interfere wit
4 the verdict. The jury retired at ~
4 o'clock.
te SEEKING LIGHT.
al At 1915 O'Clock the jury entered th
he courtroom and the testimony of John I
a. Carr, the receiving teller of the Marin
Bank, was read. 1t covered the transa
tons in regard to the checks upon whic
the Indictment was framed. The iur
n then again retired.
W FIsH's TESTIMONY AGAIN READ.
le New YORK, October 29.-At II 20 o'cloc
NJ | the jury again entered the courtroom an
ne asked that James d. Fish's testimony
10 read, as it was not clear whether or not II
le | bank certified the checks on account
81 Wards representations or in order to pr
90 tect Ward from failing, as his failure wou
'e, pull the bank down also. The testimor
ar read, the jury again retired.
e VERDICT OF GUILTY.
New YORK, October 29.-At u AS o'clot
this morning the jury in the Ward ca
re- entered the court and rendered We
dict of Isroei,TT in the first degree, penal
"a ten years, within the discretion OF Il
Al. court.
~ Ward gave evidence of severe strugg
I as ne stood up to hear the verdict. In I
sponse to the question, Have you sn
ci- thing to say?' he replied, Nothing
at Sentence was postponed until Saturd
ed morning. The case will be taken to {
lat Court Of Appeals. The jury first sto
he eight for conviction and four for acquitt
art On the second ballot it was ten for cow
ry- ton, and on the third it was eleven
one.
The Walkup Trial.