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

In one of his letters 81 am in condition to
know more about the condition of this bank than
any else" and in that letter went on to state
just what its condition was. Is all this fiction,
or lie it proved fact2
There is little point in Mr.. Daviss testimony
that do not want you to forget. Remember
that they claim that Mr. Morrison bought this
stock in entire ignorance of the condition of the
bank. Why, even f. A. W. Davis swears to you
that in the back parlor of that bank, pending
these negotiations he was present with Mr.. Nor
rison, John G. New and John C. Wright, when
the condition of this bank was talked about. He
swears he was present with Mr.. Morrison.
Mr.. Wright and Mr.. New swear that Mr..
was not there; but even according to Daviss
testimony. Mr. Morrison was there making in
vestigations. refer to the interview in which
Mr. Davis says that John G. New and John G.
Wright both jumped to their feet and jerked up
their hands and said, 1--WE will swear that the
bank is sound and all right" They swear that
they did not do any such thing, and that Mr..
Davis was not there at all. Take the circum-
stances, the corroborations of New and Wright
by other evidence, and the fact that there is no
confederation of F. A. w. Davis's statement,
and decide between them on that point. 1t is
not a material point in the case, however decided.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, promised you
that would close by noon. There are many
other points in this case thatI would like to tai
to you about, but when we commenced this argu-
ment 1t was tacitly agreed that we should con-
sumo only five days in the agument of the case,
although the court fixed no absolute limit. /
propose to give Judge Claypool all of this after
noon, and then the plaintiffs counsel will have
had over three hours more of the time than we
have had. propose to leave this case with you
upon the statements that have already been
made, so far as the defendants are concerned.
If l have miSstated a single statement of the
evidence it has been from lapse OF memory or
ignorance of the facts proved / never have
believed in trying to deceive juries 1t is no part
of the practice OF law. The lawyer who values
his character who obeys the dictates of con-
science, who believes that there is a right and a
wrong that there is present, and that there is
future, cannot afford to deceive juries; nor do
to try, by vilifcation defamation, abuse
and vituperation, to blacken, blast or
iniure the character of any person called to the
witness stand. That is no part of the duty of a
lawyer Whenever a client of mine wants that
kind of work done. he will have to get another
lawyer will not do it. Fair comment on con-
ficts in testimony is all right. If plaintiffs
counsel get you to believe that in the conflict
between John G. New, and John G. Wright, and
outweighs them, all we'll. 1t is an
immaterial point; all we'll. But that will not
wipe out their evidence the material points
in this case. If you believe that John G. Me-
Cutcheon has been contradicted in his statement
as towhat took place here in the court house that
night by the evidence of Darke, Davis and
Ketcham, so find. What is the difference? That
conflict is wholly immaterial-scarcely worthy to
be called confiict-and does not affect his
evidence on material points, in fact. confirms it.
If you believe that A. D. Lynch has been con.
tradcted as to what he told John L. Ketch am
and F. A. w. Davis, at his house,
what difference does it makel The