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


last upon the part of these plaintiffs and their
counsel. What they cannot prove they assert
without proof, and outside of the record, and
try to make you believe it as evidence And
when they lack both proof and assertion, they
try to throw mud enough on defendants wit
nesses to keep you from considering the sworn
testimony in the case.
AT the close of his remarks Mr.. Keteham very
pathetically depicted the failure of the Indiana
Banking Company-very pathetically. That
company is rot party to this suit why ne dld
1t, do not know, unless it was attempt to still
further prejudice your minds and lead them
away from the evidence. You know there is no
evidence in regard to the failure of the Indiana
Banking Company. except that on certain day
in 1884 it closed its doors and ceased to do bust
ness; but that Indiana Banking Company is not
connected in any possible way with these plant
ifs, and Ketcham knows it, and knew it when
he was depicting its failure. He knew that the
bank that failed was the bank that was organ
lied after the death of Mr.. Morrison. and after
the withdrawal of Mr.. Miller, and when Mrs.
Mary A Morrison came in partner, after
Miller had withdrawn. That he knew perfectly
well. He says: 'If you had known, as / do
that this transaction broke up my mother. and
my brother and my brOther.in-law
you might be interested too, as
am" Gentlemen. no matter how
much lawyer may be interested in his clients
case, it is always the best plan to stick to the
proof In the case, and make what there is to be
made out of the evidence. without making state
attempting to array prejudice by references to
matters not in evidence. and that cannot by any
possibility be connected with the case. If Mr..
Ketcham intended to say or to have you believe
that Mrs Jane IL. ketcham, as member OF the
Indiana Banking Company that existed in 1884
was broken up by the purchase in 1873 of this
bank stock, he stated that that he knows he
cannot prove. and that that he knows nobody
can prove, because the Indiana Banking Com
pany, that broke up had not any possible
connection with this stock transaction Ii
were required to give cause for the breaking
of the Indiana Banking Company, l would not
have to go outside of the record in this case to
lind my cause l would take up John l.. Ketch-
ANS testimony, and. with it alone, account for
the breaking of the Indiana Banking Company,
and so can any one. 1t was rotten from 1873
until the day it closed its doors, and | think the
books here in evidence show it. / say to you,
gentlemen that private bank with only acapital
of $500 000 that has 1925, 900 of its capital
locked up in real estate, and has lent to members
or its firm $40 900 of the other $75 000 that bank
is mighty near insolvency; mighty near it, and
especially so, when. as Mr.. Ketcham says, that
real estate consisted Of large and unstable
pleces--pork houses, ETC. But. gentlemen it is
not necessary for me to account for the Indiana
Banking Company having broken; that is not an
issue In this case; you not trying that iss ue;
you are not here to determine what broke the
Indiana Banking Company in 1884; not at all.
on have not anything to do with the Indiana
Banking Company as it existed in 1884, or 1883,
or 1892 or 1881: nor have you anything to do
with the Indiana Banking Company that existed
from 1878 to 1881, except under certain circum-
stances 1t may become your duty to inquire
whether the Indiana Banking Company bought
this stock, or whether Morrison and Miller
bought it. That is the only point at which the
Indiana Banking Company come in contact
with this case. But Mr.. Ketcham says: Neither
DAVIS, nor my mother, nor my brother have
dollar of pecunary interest in
this suit" If they have not they have no right
fn hp hQrn vNIn init To bat
mean by thats Did he mean that they had made
assignment for the benefit of their creditors?
If he did, why are not their assignees here in
their places! l say that if that statement, vol
unteered by counsel is true, it is enough to blot
this off the docket, because if it is true. it is
simply statement that these plaintiffs have
brought suit on an alleged claim in which they
have no pecuuiary interest, and everybody knows
what the law is on that But Mr. Ketcham says,
Everybody that knows anything about partner
ship law, knows that if the Indiana Banking
Company had rich partners that they could buy
this stock, no matter how bad off the bank was. y
Is that partnership law9 Not much. Suppose
that Mr.. Miller had been worth a million dollars
and he as private and personal venture, should
buy million dollars of national bank stock and
had afterwards failed, would not his personal
estate have to go to his personal creditors?
OF course it would One further point:
If the Indiana Banking Company. as firm, was
constituted for the purpose of carrying
general banking business in the city of Indian
apolis-l say to you, and say to the court. that
it had no right to buy 100000 worth of First
National Bank stock. 1t would have been an
illegal if it had done it, and it could not have
made any partner responsible on the contract,
because it would have been a contract outside Of
the scope Of the partnership business. If you
and go into a partnership to establish bank
of discount and deposit, in which agree to
carry on an ordinary banking business, that
agreement does not mean that you could swamp
our firm by buying $500, 900 of national bank
or of ipct1 ckn
any other kind OF stock The most ordinary
rules of partnership law settle that So that if
Mr.: Morrison and Mr.. Miller bought this stock,
and bought it for themselves as private individ-
uals, the Indiana Banking Company could not
be held responsible for dollar and
the assets of the Indiana Banking Com
pany rs firm, could not have been
held for dollar Of the purchase and every
dollar of the private assets of the persons max
ing the purchase would have to be exhausted
in paying for that purchase before their interest
in the firm could be touched. The law is simply
this: When you are in partnership the partner
ship debts must be paid out of the partnership
assets, as long there is cent left, and if, at
the same time, your firm owed partnership debts
you also owed individual debts your individual
debts have to be paid out of your individual
estate. If there is surplus to your credit in
your partnership after the partnership debts
have been paid, then the surplus goes to your
individual estate, but the two estates entirely
separate until all debts of either are paid
Now, gentlemen, before considering the actual
condition Of the bank on the 23d day of Febru-
airy, 1878, want to call your attention to few
other matters. | asked Mr. Davis, when he was
upon the stand, to tell me what the faults were
with the First Nationals books, and he named
three. One was that they allowed oyerdrafts;
the second was that the shortages were not
charged out quick enough and the third was
that there were some unindexed ac-.
counts. What else was thereg Nothing
Mr. Davis did not define any single
n of 10
one of these three items. First, as to the over
draft business; how about that! / say to you,
gentlemen, from the banks books, that within
less than two months after Mr.. Morrison became
president he had personal overdraft of about
$4,000 in that bank, and his overdrafts ran from
5000 to $4,000 substantially all the time He
was scarcely single day during his life as presi-
dent of that bank without an overdraft in his