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

Banking Company met with its dire misfortune.
Now. the trouble with that whole argument, 1T
it is WORTHY of that name, is this: The Indiana
Banking Company that broke up has not one
thing TO do with this suit The Court will in
struct you that the Indiana Banking Company
that broke up had no possible connection with
the matters involved in this suit, and never
could have brought any suit against New and
Wright regarding their sale of bank stock to
Morrison and Miller. If it had sayed pros
porous institution for forty years, and there were
no statutes. of limitations, it never could
have brought this suit. The Indiana
Banking Company the only one
even if it did buy this stock--that
! could have brought this suit was the Indiana
ban Bapkin 1g COMPANY as it existed in February.
| 1875. That is the reason these plaintiffs are
! here before this Court as surviving partners of
the dead Morrison. Secondly, all this pumping
| tor saltwater on account of mother and
"brotherln law, and brother" has not any
thing to do with this case. except that it is an
| unwarranted attempt to prejudice your minds
| against the facts proved. You are not here to
consider whether Jane l.. Ketcham has lost her
| fortune in a mis- adventure. You are not here ia
| determine whether John l.. Ketcham, or F. A w.
Davis have lost their fortunes in attempting to
bank. The Indiana Banking Company, as
it existed in February, 1878, was dissolved ON
March 10Th, 1884, by the death of William III.
Morrison, and has never existed since that day.
When Samuel Miller retired from the then ex-
listing Indiana Banking Company, in 1882, that
worked another dissolution of the company.
Plaintiffs counsel know that am stating the law
and the facts. Then why do they attempt to tie
this suit to the broken Indiana Banking Com
panyf The purpose is perfectly apparent. 1t
Is an attempt TO cause you TO try this case ON
prejudice and sympathy, rather than on the evil
dence. Mr. Ketcham's next point was descrip-
tlon Of what he was pleased to call an
oasis In the life of William III. English.
He remarks that Mr.. English, hexe on the stand,
manifested deep feeling when he was testifyine
in regard to the son of his old friend Judge
SlauQltpr Nfr
tells you that William II. English is guilty to-
day of all the wrongs that James L. Slaughter
ever committed-that the responsibility is on Mr..
English What sort of an oasis is thatl He
says English ought to be bounded by his
conscience account of the way he brought up
Jim Slaughter. That is the end of the oasis.
1t is little one. Then Mr. Ketcham, for no
other purpose than an attempt to prejudice you
against both the law and the facts, tells you
these defendants are hiding behind the statute
of limitations What does that mean gentle
menl In the first place it is an innuendo against
the law of your country. 1t is eauiva-
lent to saying that the statute of linn
itations is bad statute, disreputable statute.
will tell you what the statute of limitations Isl 1t
is statute to prevent scoundrels from bringing
suits against honest men after the evidence, with
which they might have defended themselves,
is effaced, lost and obliterated by lapse
OF years. 1t is statute of repose.
1t is a statute that every man, woman and child
in the State of Indiana, and in every State of
and protection against those who would. by
! Vaccinations and the concoction of evidence,
after the facts have faded away and the evidence
has been lost, bring suits for bad and unjust
purposes. The statute of limitations is not only
statute of repose, but is statute that the
Supreme Court of the United States, now recog-
nizes as the highest judicial tribunal on this
| globe, and the highest courts of all civilized
| countries, regard with the highest favor. Text
writer's all agree that statutes of Limitation are
| benefcent, and ought to be in favor Suppose
that, eight years ago, you in your business, had
a transaction with a man whom you thought to
be honest and honorable; there were writings
connected with 1t, perhaps, or perhaps il rested
all in oral contract; but perhaps there were some
| writings connected in some way with t--checks,
or receipts, or drafts or something that could
| have been brought to light and put in evidence
| that would have made that transaction perfectly
| plain; but you thought the man was honest and
| your papers accumulated, and, in order to get
them out of the way, you just did them up in
bundle and threw them into some box, and the
mice destroyed them; or. some men fool;shly
do. you might have burned them up.
Now suppose the man with whom you had the
transaction waited until six full years passed
by, without uttering word of complaint, or ex-
pressing the slightest dissatisfaction, and should
then sue you, charging you with fraud, decep-
tion and Misrepresentation, worse yet. Sup
pose the man you dealt with died years after
your trade with him, without ever having COM
planned to you any one else about the trans
action, and another man should sue you.
claiming to be the partner of the man
you had your transaction with. Your checks,
and receipts, and contracts are scattered and
| lost; the honest man you traded with is dead
and cannot help you as he would if living-would
you want just such a statute as tho statute
| Of lmtationsa Would not it be a just statutei Is
it not for the protection of society! How did
Mr.. Ketcham get over the point, and the very
strong point in this case, that the stock was
actually transferred and delivered on the 23d
day of February, 1879 His only answer was
| that the stock WAS NOT used until February 20.
| Why. gentlemen, the stock was used from the
| instant thatit was assigned. Morrison and Mil
Ter would never have to it in any other sense
than to put it away in the tin box" and draw
dividends it. Was that an answer2 Mr..
ketcham in his argument took up exhibit
how "BB" was made. He said it was as plain
as the nose on mans face that old man Morri-
wrote on this exhibit all that appears on it,
from the top down to the bottom Of the lists of
notes New and Wright were to take in payment,
and that he did not write the balance Of this
exhibit until after another interview with New.
He said that it is perfectly plain that exhibit
''BB" was written at two different times; down
to the bottom of the lists of notes at the first sit
ting, and that all below the lists of notes was
written afterwards; that the pencil memoraduns
were written for the purpose of having another
interview with New and Wright with regard to
the matters mentioned in them, and that after
| that interview Morrison finished up the writing
on the exhibit below the lists of notes. Now that
| is ketcham's theory. As l said a while ago. it
amounts to a clear admission by Ketcham that
exhibit 'BB" was made out at an early stage ia
the negotiations But l would like to know by
what right Mr.. Ketcham makes UP, and at
tempts to force upon you, his theory AS
TESTIMONY. There is not particle
of testimony in support of his theory. Here is a
| paper, all in Morrisons handwriting all in the
| same ink all about that same transaction There
is not particle of internal evidence in the paper
that it was not all written at the same time and
| submit to the Coart and to you, gentlemen.
that where single sheet Of paper has a writing
upon it with regard to single transaction, all
in the same handwriting, and all IN the same
colored ink the presumption of Law is that it
was all written at the same time, unless it bears
| internal evidence clearly showing to the contra
~; and, as have already said, there is not
t,,fa Of i,.%l