The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-29

4 present.
and did not participate therein. The contract of
SAFE was In writing, as were all the matters in
relation TO Its contamination, and mention is
mace that the purchase was for the Indiana Bank
ing company. While this is by no means con-
elusive, yet 1t is quite Influential and though the
purchase exceeded in value the amount of the
assets OF the Indiana Banking Company, no pa
pers were found in that bank in relation to the
SAFE, or memoranda of any character on its books
IN winch mention of the sale was made. In all
MT Morrlsons correspondence and in the reports
TO the government, made with full knowledge
OF the parties, mention is made that the
Indiana Banking Company had any interest in
the purchase, and to my mind no evidence is
entltled to greater weight than the statement of
Messrs John H. Holiday and Hervey Bates:
mat MORRISON told them that the Indiana Bank
Ing Company had no interest in the purchase
Ihese witnesses were interested in the First
National Bank, and feared that if the purchase
OF the stock was by the Indiana Banking Com
pany Whose solvency they doubted), that the
assets Of the bank in which they had
an interest, might be used to support the Indiana
interview, which brought out the statement from
Morrison that there was no connection with the
Indiana Banking Company, and that it had no
interest in the purchase. Not mere passing or
casual remark without much significance and
without purpose. | am bound to accept the
truth OF it as asserted, supported as it is by
abundant proof from ouher sources. 1t will
readily occur to counsel that have not referred
to all the evidence on this point in support of
this view, but will omit its consideration for the
present will, however, refer to one other item,
and that is the statement in writing of Mr.. Nor
rison, found among his papers, in which he gives
lengthy account of the purchase, and in which
1T is shown that the purchase was for certain in
dividual persons named therein with no mention
OF the Banking Company as the purchaser, and
emitting the names ofsBauta and Ditmars, mem
bers OF said Banking Company at the
time. 1t is not claimed that they were
Tod in o1o+in To %ho ohoca
or had any knowledge of it whatever and so far
as this is concerned either before or after
the sale. They were strangers to it then, and
so far as this trial discloses, strangers now. Can
it be said that Mr.. Morrison, their partner in the
Indiana Banking Company would make pur
chase of the stock in another bank for them and
without their knowledge assent. that would
absorb every dollar of the assets, real and per-
sonal, of the bank in which they were partners
and leave it without dollar upon which to do
BUSINESS and with debt of hundred thousand
dollars besides due on the purchase? The court
ought not to be asked to believe that Mr.. Morri-
son committed such a wrong, the doing of which
would certainly not be in accord with the char
acter for sterling integrity that is given to him
by all the witnesses who speak upon that sub
ject, and accorded to him by counsel on both
sides of this cause.
A large number of affidavits have been placed
on file, given by various persons, in support of
the motion for new trial, on the ground of
newly discovered evidence, and much of the evil
dence collected bears this question as to
who was the real purchaser. do not refer to
them in support of my view Of what was estab
lished by the evidence. l cannot permit them to
have any weight with me on this question. and
do not; yet they are quite significant. l refer to
the afidavts of Messrs Browning, Barnard
Barnes, Hume, Howard Hanway, McMurtry,
Loftin and Neeld. in which they state that Nor
| rison told them that the Indiana Banking Com
pany had no interest in the purchase of the
stock; and to the afidavits of Messrs. Howard,
Popn Nd MoNJr, oh thax,
say that the plaintiff Davis told them that the
Indiana Banking Company was in way con-
nected with the purchase of the stock taken by
Morrison, of the First National Bank. The
truth of these last affidavits is denied by Mr..
Davis.
In addition to the issue I have just con-
sidered, in order that the plaintiffs might re-
cover, it was necessary for them to prove that
the defendants, New and Wright made the rep
reservations in relation to the stock and the con-
dition Of the First National Bank, alleged,
| and that they were false, and known to be false,
by the party making them; that Morrison made
no examination of the assets, and was ignorant
of the condition of the bank. and made the
purchase the faith of such representations
| being true, with no knowledge to the contrary,
and that injury has resulted therefrom Upon
| this question there is no room for me to doubt
| That the plaintiffs have failed to sustain these
| allegations may be shown by very brief ex-
| animation of the evidence. In the first
| instance, it is not shown that a single
| false statement of either New or Wright
| was ever made by them to Morrison the sole
party purchasing; or that any false statement of
| theirs ever came to him. 1t is not claimed that
| there is any direct testimony on this point, but
it is said that the false representations charged
| are proved by circumstances, and that it may
be inferred that the defendants made such repre-
| sensations to Morrison. This is case that is
pre- eminent for theories and differences. 1t can
| not be claimed that the circumstances prove that
| any particular representation was made Ii we
s~f1 %ho% of %ln rok,N
| were made, which ones determined to
| have been established by proof! A great many
representa- tions are charged. Some are mere
opinions as to the value of the stock and general
| statements upon which fraud could not be predi-
| Gated and some, if false and shown to have been
made, must greatly affect the value Of the stock,
| and some much more than others. Would
| not the circumstances be as we'll directed
| to any other set OF false representa-
| tons as the ones chargedl There must
be more certainty in proof-at least something
| direct in the way of sustaining the particular
representations charged, or some of them. l
| said the case was remarkable for differences; 1t
| is not less so for the absolute want of evidence
in support of the charges am considering am
| asked TO INFER that the defendants New and
| Wright made representations to Morrison as to
| the banks condition. TO INFER that the repre-
| sensations so made are the ones charged; TO IN
| FER that they knew them to be false; TO INFER
| that Morrison made no examination of the assets
| of the bank, and TO INFER that he was ignorant
of its true condition. and purchased relying on
the truth of such false statements Too much
for inference too much for the proof. While fraud
may be proved by circumstances, yet it must not
be presumed, but must be clearly proved Of
course cannot detail the alleged circumstances.
They are wholly insufficient to warrant the in
| ferences attempted to be drawn from them.
| AS has already been said, the plaintiffs were
required to establish that Morrison made no ex-
animation into the condition of the bank, but
that he was in ignorance of its condition, and
| purchased the stock without examination
| lying on the false representations. If it be
| shown that Morrison made examination of
the bank, that alone would end the case,
if everything else were fully proved in
| favor Of the plaintiffs let the repre-
| sensations be shown to have been made and
i fal Nha h1,rdar he nj int.