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

Mr.. Wright; wherever there is a conflict of evi-
dence between them and the plaintiffs or any
other witness that is fair subject for comment;
but it is not a fair subject for vituperation and
abuse. Conflicts between Mr.. Davis, and Mr..
Wright and Mr.. New are to be weighed by you.
There is one circumstance in this case that either
did or did not happen; either that interview
that Mr. Davis swears about taking place In
the First National Bank, did take place. or
1t did not. There is no getting around that
There is no Disgusting the fact that there is a
square conflict between Davis on the one side
and New and Wright on the other. Now. who
has told the truth about itl Davis is the plaintiff
and New and Wright are defendants They both
swear to you that that conversation that Davis
has narrated never took place anywhere. either
IN the bank or out of It, Mr.. Davis says that it
did take place. and in the course of my remarks
will have occasion to call your attention TO
what Mr. ketcham thought was confederation.
put which Is very strong proof the other way
Now, that is fair subject for comment; but
where there is conflict between the witnesses
and they are interested in the event of the suit
on the one side or the other, is that fair reason
for saying that either of them are perjurers?
Bring up the corroborating circumstances; rec
oncile the conflict if you can: if you cannot take
that evidence which seems to be backed most
strongly by corroborating circumstances. That
IS your sworn duty. | am perfectly willing to
leave that question in that shape. Did
that conversation take place, or not!
are John c. New and John C. Wright F. A. w.
Davis swears that it did, and he is wholly
unsupported by any corroborating circum stances.
John c. New and John c. Wright are corrobor
ated by an overwhelming array Of circumstances
that GO to show that other parts of Mr.. Davis's
testimony are Incorrect New which is right
and which is wrong! Mr.. Shepard tells you that
Mr.. New and Mr.. Wright did not deny part of
the conversation with Mr.. Davis in which he
talked about "bully bank" | say to you that
L<kl e IL
conversation with Mr. Davis in connection with
this transaction, after the first nights interview,
at Mr.. MorrisonS house, between Davis and
Morrison and John c. New. Now. in view of
these gratuitous and unsupported charges made
against these witnesses, / ask the Court to
instruct the jury that honesty and truth are the
Prescriptions of law; ask this Court, further, to
instruct this Jury that witness cannot be
slandered, and his reputation villifed and
DETAINED without any shadow of conflict as to
his evidence, and ask the Court to instruct the
jury, third, that conflicts in evidence are to be
reconcied, if possible, and, if not, to be SO deter
mined as the preponderating corroborating cir
cumstances may determine
Now, gentlemen want to call your attention
to some of the perversions of the evidence in
dulged In by MIR. Shepard. In trying to array
your prejudices against Mr. English, he mar
rated conversation that he thinks took place
between Mr.. English and Mr.. New, when the
overdrafts were discovered. He did not give the
conversation as either of the witnesses gave it.
Mr.. English tells what he said, and testifes as
to just what the conversation was, and Mr.. New
testifes the same in substance; but their evil
dence does not suit Mr.. Shepard He said: II
tell you, gentlemen, that amt the way it was. J"
There was row there" You know there was
row there" If you do, how did you find it outl
Who swore to it? Who has suggested it, except
Shepard and Ketcham! Are you going to try
this case on the statements of Shepard, or on
sworn testimony He says to you in the face of
hOt iS Mr tn
there was row there" and he says they were
shocked" and he says, why don't
they bring in the shocking -machnesl'
He says: 'Igoe was one of the shocking machines
and Slaughter was the other" Now there is
just little circumstance that crept out in this
testimony that settles that point. That same
man Igoe is in that bank to this day-he was
in the employment of First National Bank No.
So as long as it lasted and then he went into
the employment of the present First National
Bank, and is now the trusted book keeper of the
bank of which William Fl. English is the pres-
dent, and has been all these years Does not
that settle that matters Did not Mr. Shepard
forget that when he was talking about Mr.. Igoe
being a shocking machine2 Then, again, Mr.
Shepard either unintentionally Intentionally
do not know which, made this statement: that
Mr.. McCutcheon, after Morrison became Prcsi-
dent, made the defaults known little by little. "
Who swore to thatl Mr.. Shepard thought it vas
necessary for that kind of evidence to be il the
case, and, not finding any witness to put
it in, he thought he would put it in
himself. That is the only way it got into
the case. No witness has sworn to anything of
that kind. Mr.. McCutcheon has sworn to you
positively, that before Mr. Morrison bought this
stock, he went to his house and spent one evening
with him and told him everything he knew about
both the Miller and Slaughter transactions, aud
he has detailed to you here just what he told him.
and what items of loss he told him about. Now,
did he do it, or not2 Who swears he did not9
Nobody. He swears he did, and Shepard says
81 tell you that McCutcheon let out the defaults
little by little, as Morrison could stand them. "
Are you going to try the case on Mr.. Shepard s
statement or on the facts as proved2 You know
there is no evidence in support of Mr. Shepards
statements, not a particle. Are you going to
consider it, You cannot do it under your oaths
You are bound by the testimony as it came from
the witnesses, and not by the statements of
of evidence in support of their statements.
Then, again, Mr.. Shepard-in speak
ing Of the resolution of Aug. 3, 1877,
under which the 900 was put into
the trust and under which Mr. English bought
the $l4800O of notes and judgments-says,
II will tell you what that resolution meant it
meant division and silence" What sense is
there in that gentlemen? Can you find outl
Does anybody claim that the bank lost nickel
in that whole transaction! Or that anybody
stole anything9 Is there any possible reason
for claiming anything of that kind9 Why
make the statement that the resolution meant
division aud silence? I will tell YOU 1t was
made for the purpose of getting you to vio-
late your oaths, and try this case on prejudice
excited by statements of counsel rather than
by the evidence. We have proved that that kind
Of transaction had occurred before in that bank
MR. CLAYPooL-That same kind of transac-
ton?
Mr.. BUTLER-It was this kind of transac-
ton; when the stock was changed from $500,
900 to 81, 900 600, $3.50, 900 of the the new stock
was put in the hands of Mr.. English and Mr.
New, as trustees, and carried by the bank for
months, until they could sell it.
Again, Mr.. Shepard said. in talking about the
evidence of Mr.. New, Mr.. McCutcheon and Mr.
Wright: II believe Carey Miller told about the
Angle and Miller So, 900 and s., 900 that night up
at News" What makes Mr.. Shepard believe
that! Is there any evidence to support him?
All the evidence is to the contrary; and Mr..
Ketcham, in examining witnesses here on the
stand, his own witness, McCutcheon proved that