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

But, gentlemen they say We are hiding behind
the statute of limitations, and that we must
come out from behind that statute, because
John c. Wright made a visit to Europe, and,
while gone, hung up his residence on peg, and
| abandoned it, and had no residence while absent
A more ridiculous proposition, do not think,
ever fell from the lips Of lawyers. That is not
the law Every lawyer knows that mans
residence is matter of INTENTION, and when
be has a residence established that residence
remains his residence until, by intention and
purpose he changes it; temporary absence
from the country, or being absent on public bust
ness, does not change or forfeit his residence.
Wright did not even close up his residence; we
proved that he did not He put family into
his house. using his house ard furniture for the
purpose OF protecting it; and he had his business
Office open every day he was gone, with his
| agent constantly in attendance. But they say
that John c. New Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury of the United States, and,
therefore, the statute of limitations does
not run in his behalf. The Constitu-
ton of the State of Indiana tells us that
no man who is absent public business for the
United States or the State of Indian shall, by
that fact lose his residence The Legislature of
the State of Indiana, in 1851. passed a law re-
peating the language of the Constitution of In
DIANA and saying that man who is alb
sent from the State on business of the
State, or of the United States shall
not thereby lose his residence We go further
and prove that from the hour John c. New
became Assistant Secretary of the Treasury his
family continued to reside in his homestead in
Indianapolis and, more than that, we proved
that in this very case, he was brought into this
court on a summons left at his place of resi-
dence, served by copy, while he was Assistant
Secretary.
Did Mr.. Morrison understand the condition of
this bank from the Tine he went into it? If he
had made no examination before if he went
into that bank on the first day of March without
knowing anything about it's condition he could
not have done as he did. You recollect,
asked Mr. Holiday and Mr.. Bates
both, whether Mr.. Morrison mani
tested familiarity with the condition of the
First National Bank when they were making that
examination. They both answered that he did
That examination was on the 18th of March, that
was just two weeks after Morrison had become
president and yet the committee of the stock
holders told you he manifested perfect famili-
arity with the condition of the bank and more
than that, we find him, a short time after that,
writing such letters to the Comptroller of the
Currency as prove that he knew all about the
bank. He wrote the Comptroller of the Cur
rency that he thought that very report of March
15 was exaggerated in its statement of losses,
ard that he concurred with the former managers
of the bank in their estimate of probable losses.
Then coming on down to Sept. 9, 1873 we
have conclusive proof that Mr.. Morrison then
knew the CO ndition of the bank when he signed
his name president to carefully prepared
circular and sent it out to the stockholders and
depositors of the bank showing them that the
stock was daily increasing in value, and showing
them, by the figures in that statement that the
stock was worth every cent he paid for it.
In his correspondence with the Comptroller of
the Currency, wherever we strike it, we find Mr..
Morrison stating to the Comptroller of the Cur
rency that he knew all about the bank. He says