The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12
-ARGU MENT
oF-
JOHN NJ. BUTLER ESQ.,,
IN THE CASE OF
WILLIAM NEEDHAM ct al.
VS..
John c. WRIGHT ct al.
SUPERIOR COURT, MARION COUNTY.
DELIVERED AT
INDIANAPOLIS, JULY 9 and 10. 1885.
INDIANAPOLIS, JULY 9 and 10. 1885.
THURSDAY. July 8. 1885.
Mn RIrrr.FR--


If the closing statements of Mr.. Ketcham were
true you would not be in this jury-box trying
this case He told you that these plaintiffs had
no interest in this case; that the Indiana Bank
ing Company is the real party in interest in this
suit and that the action is for the protection
of the creditors of the Indiana Banking Com
pany. Now, Mr.. Ketcham knows that is not cor
rect. The Indiana Banking Company broke up
year or two ago, and is now in the hands of
receiver. The Court will tell you that if the
Indiana Banking Company had any right of
action against John c. New and John G. Wright
its receiver would be the only proper party
plaintiff. These plaintiffs could not bring the
suit under such circumstances, because they are
members of the Indiana Banking Company, as
constituted at the time of its disastrous failure.
Now, what was that statement made for, gentle
men2 1t was just such statement as eight
tenths of two days and three-quarters of talking
has been; that is, to draw your minds away from
the case you are sworn to try, and cause you to
try it on prejudice rather than evidence
If these plaintiffs have not any interest in this
suit, they have perjured themselves, and their
lawyers have brought suit they had no au-
thorty to bring What sort of a suit is this? 1t
is not the suit of the surviving partners of the
Indiana Banking Company that broke up.
Ketcham and Shepard know that; Claypool
knows that but they are surviving partners of
an institution that existed seven years ago, and
that ceased to exist not less than four years
ago. | ask the Court to instruct this jury that
the Indiana Banking Company that these
plaintiffs belonged to, and for which they sue as
surviving partners absolutely ceased to exist
on the 18th day of March, 1881. 1t never has
existed since, and every lawyer engaged in this
cause knows that fact. What is the purpose of
Juggling into this suit the breaking up of the In
diana Banking Company and making pathetic
''brother-in-law9" These matters are not
in the case. Nobody has sworn in this
case that the Indiana Banking Company that
broke up ever had, or claimed TO have, any right
of action against these parties-none whatever
Now, gentlemen, 1t may come IN my way some
time during this argument, to show what did
break up the Indiana Banking Company. The
evidence here before you, justly considered and
carefully weighed, shows that the Indiana
Banking Company has been rotten to the core
for ten years. At the very time that these
plaintiffs say that with capital of only $500, 900
they proposed to invest $500, 900 in national
bank stock. they say themselves that if they had
been put into the hands of a receiver it would
have been difficult for them to have paid their
debts That is the shape the Indiana Banking
Company was in. l will have more to say about
that hereafter.
Now, let us come back to the case little while.
You have listened to hours and days of causeless
TRADES against witnesses, abuse of these defend
ants, and glaring misstatements of the facts
proved. Letus first examine the case and discov-
er, if we can, how it stands on undisputed facts
facts about which there is absolutely no dispute.
In 1863 the First National Bank was created. 1t
was one of the first experiments in the great ex-
pertinent that determined whether the govern
ment should go up or down. 1t was a success
an eminent success. 1t passed along through
years OF prosperity Until in 1877 it had paid out
to its stockholders over million dollars in divi-
dends besides returning to them part of their
original capital. 1t had transacted millions upon
millions of dollars of business for the general
government without the loss of a copper cent to
the general government 1t was known and
honored banking institution throughout the
United States
Plaintiffs counsel make great ado about
an overdraft on Winslow, Laner & Co.
for $57, 600 Mr.. English tells you that that
was an ordinary transaction, and that such over
drafts, either by or against the bank, were
neither strange nor unusual. 1t was an institu-
ton of high credit and of extensive and valuable
buSlress connections. In 1877, in July, it was
discovered that overdrafts had been allowed by
the cashier. 1t seems from the evidence that
both the president Mr.. English and the vice
president, Mr.. New found out that fact at about
the same time. The day the president found out
that fact be came to the conclusion that it
best to have only one man at the hem-that
man to be absolutely supreme in the control of
the bank He made up his mind that that should
be the case If he stayed in the bank. and conse
Ouentiy made a proposition to NJ New to either
buy News stock or sell his stock to New His
proposition to give take one hundred
and sixty cents to the dollar for the
stock. Mr.. English testifes that when he made
that proposition he expected to be the purchaser
and was surprised that he was not the purchaser
atproposition was accepted by Mr. New. Now
it is undisputed fact that Mr. New did not
buy from Mr.. English a controlling interest in
that bank. Mr.. English only had l 622 shares of
the capital stock of the bank, and, consequently
although he sold non-controlling interest, he
sold it at 81. 60; and, at the same time, he was
willing to give for Mr. News $50 shares a like
amount per share. Now, remember the fact
that Dir. English did not sell controlling inter
est in the bank, but he sold at SLIGO notwith
standing
Time passed on Mr.. New became presi-
dent and DR. Wright vice-president. | will
skip every point on which there can be the
slightest disagreement During that year, in
September, 1877, it was discovered that there
was something wrong with the 5 per cent. re-
demption fund. Mr.. New went to Washington
TO look after the matter, and the day after he
came back from Washington Mr. Slaughter
left the bank, and sent in his resignation. There
Is no dispute about these facts, What transpred
at Washington will come to at another point
am now only giving the plain unvarnished, I'M
contradlcted facts. A count of the cash was made
that night, and it was found $l3 900 short, and
overdrafts, tickets and memorandum checks
were found on the counter representing 81 600
or So, 600 more, making between 500 600 and
$24, 900 that the bank officers regarded as lost
John Z. McCutcheon was duly elected cashier
that same day. and it is an undisputed fact that
he has been cashier of the bank ever since He
was cashier of the old bank until it went into
liquidation, and has been the cashier of the new
bank ever since IL was organized down TO this
hour and is now the cashier of that bank under
Mr. English's administration. There is no dis
pute about that AS soon as he was elected
cashier an investigation was begun, a careful
thorough investigation of the condition
of the bank and its assets. AS that
investigation neared the receiving teler's depart
ment, the receiving teller went up to Mr.. News
house one evening and confessed that he had
abstracted s33. 600 of the banks money Plaintiffs
counsel say that was not all; but you will remem-
Der that the paper items were brought here, and
the book, showing just how, and in what
amounts Miller, the receiving teller, was carry
ing that S33. 900 the day he made his confession.
That was in December. In October previous,
the United States Bank examiner, A d. Lynch,
had made an examination Of this bank-on the
9th OF Oetober-and had reported to the govern
ment shortage Of some ga. 900 in the cash Of
the bank At that time the Carey Miller matter
had not been discovered. But Mr. Lynch had