The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-29
VERDICT In TIE WARD CASE
The Prisoner Found Guilty of Larceny
in the First Degree,
Which involves Penalty of Ten Years in
the Penitentiary in the Discretion
Of the Court.

bers, stenographer, in the case of Holt against
Warner, and George r. Spencer cashier of the
firm of Grant & Ward, were examined briefly,
but their testimony developed nothing new The
prosecution then rested.
Counsel for the defense then moved that the
State be required to elect on which charge in the
Indictment they intended to ask the jury for
conviction The motion was denied tempora
rily.
ExJudge Cochran then opened for the defense.
He said that his client had been bounded by the
press, by financial men, and by members of
prominent family. but the jury had only to con
slider the evidence and render verdict accord
ingy Mr. Fish, he said, went the stand
= not responsible witness, and it was the first time
that convict had been called TO the stand to
testify in the court of Oyer and Terminer.
Fish was convict, and his condition when
sworn as a witness prevented his being
liable for perjury. or anything less than murder
Fish comes here, and animated by venom,
swears TO anything that comes into his head.
and, being utterly irresponsible. he knows that
he cannot be held responsible. If he testified to
try and send Ward to prison, be is probably
working for pardon by making Ward the scape-
goat. In 1882 the bank was 10 difficulties. and
Fishs testimony could not be considered with
out corroborative testimony. Upon the evidence
verdict of guilty was impossible. In the letter
of March 90, 1884 Fish said to Ward that his
troubles were too much for him. Fish was con-
tipually soliciting Ward for help.
William s. Warner who had entered the room
during the remarks of the lawyers, was then
called to the stand for the defense He testified
that he knew Ward, and recognized the check
for $7l 800, which he had received in the ordi-
nary course Of business. After certifcaton by
the Marine Bank it was deposited in the Ameri-
, can Exchange Bank On cross exami-
w1afin Cn1h hot he had
ceived the check IN Wards private
Office, and at the time he had with him the OBJ
legations which the money due. The
amount was the profit on certain investments
with Grant q Ward on government contracts.
The witness could not remember the form of the
ALLEGATION, but it was due on that day MAY s.
The difference due the investments resulted
in his getting the check for ST., 800. All the
contracts were made direct with Ward in his
private Office. On May s. he received a contract
for much larger sum than $7l, $780, which only
represented the profit on the old transaction.
Mr.. Warner did not know where the contracts
were but thought that possibly he had some in
his possession.
Julian r. Davies. the receiver for the firm of
: Grant d Ward, next testified that he took Dos
session of the assets of Grant 81 Ward, on May
8, 1884. He had partial list of the securities of
the firm. which were found in boxes in the
Bankers Safe Deposit Company, which place
the witness had visited in the company of u s.
Grant, ir. He did not know the value of the
- parties who had brought suits about them, SO
great was their number. Some Of the securities
had been delivered to their owners on their pay
ing the loans for which they had been pledged
: Others were vaueless and some were awaiting
disposal by direction of the court OF the 1910
900 in bonds of the Buffalo e New York railroad
Senator Chaffee and Receiver johnson. of the
Marine Bank, both claim them Benjamin Fish
also claimed some bonds, and few were de.
livered to him by order of the court In one
package where l2o bonds should have been. 124
were found to be missing He had found 500 in
the Office on taking possession. and the bank ac
count overdrawu.
- The assignment of Grant 81 Ward was here
offered in evidence.
VIM c. Smith testified that between May 3
and Nav he had been negotiating loans for the
firm of Grant & Ward, uut did not know what
became of the money realized. He could not
approximate the amount of loans made by the
firm between the dates mentioned He was tile
representative of the firm on the Stock Exchange,
= and also knew James d. Fish. This witness
virtually closed the for the defense.
General Tracy offered to allow the jury to test
whether or not one could use the telephone. and
another, standing by him, could distinguish
voices
George S. Spencer was called to the stand by
the district attorney, but added nothing new to
= the testimony previously given.
General Tracy asked tine district attorney to
elect upon which count he had decided to 90 be
fore the jury.
''We elect the second and fourth counts" said
the district attorney.
Then" said General Tracy II move the &C
Guittal of Ward as the evidence does not bear
out the indictment. Ward did not procure the
Endorsement on the check on which the indict-
ment was based. He gave it in the usual bust
ness way"
The court denied the motion
General Tracy summoned up the evidence for
the defense. taking particular pains to impress
the fact that Fish, a convict, was not amen
aole to any penalty for perjury and holding that
he was urged on by viDdictive hatred of the ac-
ceased. Colonel Fellows summed up for the
State contrasting the actions of Ward and Fish
at the time of the failure. The former ran
away, the latter awaited the catastrophy like
man. Judge Barrett began his charge at $50
He defined the law, and read the
statute concerning the crime charged.
: The question was as to whether the
defendant had an intent to defraud, and of such
character as to deceive person of ordinary
prudence. Had Ward procured the $7l. 800 in
such ways The whole case rested on one
point-did Ward obtain the certifcation of the
81, 800 check2 1t was for the jury to decide on
the evidence of James D. Fish and his brother,
the testimony of neither being contradicted
Ward was not alone on trial, but justice, too,
on trial Public clamor should not influence
abe jury. The jury retired at 7:25.
At 1015 the jury entered the courtroom and
the testimony of John I'll. Carr, the receiving
teller of the Marine Bank was read. 1t covered
the transactions In regard to the checks upon
which the indictment framed. The jury
, then again retired.
At 1920 the jury again entered the court
room, and asked that James d. Fish's testimony
be read, as it was not clear whether or not the
bank certified the checks on account of Wards
representations, or IN order TO protect Ward
from failing as his failure would pull the bank
down also The testimony read, the jury again
retired.
The Verdict.
New YORK, Oct 29-At 12:45 o'clock this
morning the jury in the Ward case re-entered
the courtroom and returned a verdict of larceny
in the first degree, penalty ten years, within
discretion of the court.
Ward gave evidence of a severe struggle AS
he stood up to receive the verdict In response