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

into the transaction with them, as individuals
That tharmonizes the evidence. Are you going
| to decide this case the statement of counsel
| that Mr. Morrison forgot the names of his part
ners! That is not in evidence 1t will not
do to say that Mr.. Morrison FORGOT
| the names of Two of his partners
and that he forgot those names, although he
wrote down the name of the county in which
| they lived, and the name of their nsighbor Mr..
Needham, who was one of the partners in the
Indiana Banking Company. You are not here
| to try this the assertions of plaintiffs
counsel, but on the evidence. There is one more
| item Of evidence on this point, and that is the
| evidence of Mr.. Holiday and Mr.. Bates. Did
they testify truthfully or notl Shepard says
| they did not tell the conversation with Morrison
as it took place. Mr.. Ketcham says they
| mistaken; that their testimony is incorrect and
misleading. Have they lied9 Who are they!
Two OF the best and most prominent citizens OF
est in this case! Is there any reason why they
should misstate or color the facts9 None what
| ever; what do they says They say, gentlemen
| OF the jury, that at certain time
holders in the First National Bank, and
| that the trouble was that the First National
Bank stockholders were afraid that there was some
| connection between the Indiana Banking Com
| pany and that bank; they feared that in an
emergency, the First National Bank would have
| to support the Indiana Banking Company: This
fear was caused by the purchase by Morrison of
this stock from New and Wright: They went
| nation touching that very point. They asked
Mr.. Morrison: ''Mr. Morrison did you buy this
stock for the Indiana Banking Company, or did
| you buy it for yourself and Mr.. MillerW MIR.
asked Mr. Morrison that question directly, and
Mr.. Morrison answered, i bought it for myself
and Samuel Miller; the Indiana Banking Com
pany has not anything to do with it,, Mr.. Bates
testified to the same effect They know whether
Morrison told them that or not. Did Mr.. Morri
| son deliberately lie about that, or did he tell
| them the truth9 Now, gentlemen, in view of
these eight items of evidence, what do you say9
Did the Indiana Banking Company buy this
| stock! The evidence answers mo"
| But, now, let us see what the condition of the
| Indiana Banking Company at that time, as
to the probability of its being able or willing to
undertake the purchase of 100000 of the capital
stock of this bank. What was its condition? l
| Showed you the Indiana Banking Company's
ledger yesterday, in which there is no account at
all of such transaction. That is strong cir.
cumstance then, again, the condition OF
the Indiana Banking Company, shown
by John L. Ketchams testimony, proves that it
was unable TO purchase this stock. Here is what
John L. Ketcham says about that l begin
where he swears they were carrying as much as
$50 600 worth of real estate:
Question-The real estate you were holding at that
time amounted to as much as 1925, OOO did it not!
Answer--WelL we didn't call it real estate.
Ques.-I do not what you call it; that the
security you held and looked to for the payment of
the debts it represented
Ans-Well, do not know whether you would say
that or not.
Ques.-You did say 1925, ooo all told!
Ans.--It is possible.
Ques.-About that!
Ans.-Well, do not know / do not know just
exactly what the figures would be.
Ques.-I not asking you exactly what the figures
would be?
Ans-My best Judgment would be, it would be
where along there.
Two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
in real estate was then held by the Indiana
Banking Company. Mr.. Davis, in exhibit ''X,"
shows there then due from the Indiana
Banking Company partners to it $40, 900, and it
held 1925 900 worth of real estate while its total
capital was only $500, 000 Let US go on with Mr..
Ketchams testimony.
Ques.-Now, will ask you if at that time, in Feb
ruayy, 1878 you could have paid off your depositors
and returned capital invested to the members of
the firm?
Ans-It would depend good deal on the way the
assets were handled.
He swears it was doubtful whether the bank
was actually solvent at that time. He says ut
would depend a good deal on the way the assets
were handled" (reading).
Ques.-It would have taken good, careful manage
ment to do itl
Ans-Well, if it was to go into the hands of re-
ceiver that would be another proposition.
Ques.-Would it not have taken the very best of
company in 1878 if stopped right there, pay its de-
positors in full and pay up all its other debts and
turn the capital without dollar of dividend in
terest to the members of the firm?
Ans.-Well, the bank was going
Ques.-I am not asking about that
Ans-Well if the bank stops it is good deal like
train going off the track. You know in going into
the hands of receiver what kind of shape the
get into.
Ques.-I will get you to the question. IF
the bank had stopped and gone into liquidation in
February, 1873 without any receiver; just suppose
it had gone into iquidaon and the members of your
firm handled the assets, would it not have taken
careful management and a good long time to have
made your assets pay your depositors pay off your
he their
original capital without dollar to divide?
QueS.-And you would not have had any margin to
sparel
Ans.-F do not suppose any surplus.
Now gentlemen, take that bank in that con-
dition, with 1925 600 in real estate and with its
partners owing it $40 900, when its total capital
is only $500, 900, and when its cashier swears to
you that it would have taken careful manage
ment to have made it pay its debts and return
the capital without a dollar of div
idends or profits Do you suppose that such
bank, in the condition that bank was in would
undertake to buy $500 900 of capital stock in the
First National Bank-$100, 900 more than its
entire capitals Gentlemen, if it did, it intended
stock 1t is apparent that it did not have any
| money to do it with If it did, it intended to,
| and did. commit a gigantic fraud on its deposi-
| tors. Now, gentlemen, another question. Did
Mr.. Morrison examine the assets of this bank,
and examine into its liabilities, and buy this
| stock his own judgments Did he or notq
That is of the important issues in this case.
| These plaintiffs have charged in their complaint
that Morrison bought this stock in entire ig-
norance of the condition of the bank, and its
assets and liabilities; that he bought it in entire
ignorance, and that he bought it relying solely
| upon the representations and statements of Mr..
New and Mr. Wright as to its condition. Did
MIR. Morrison examine the assets and liabilities
of this bank or not? Who swears that he
did nota Nobody! There is not even
| a conflict of evidence on this point.
No human being has sworn that he did not ex-
anime fully and carefully the assets and
liabilities of the bank, while New, and Wright,
| and McCutcheon swear that he did. Even John
| L. Ketcham and F. A.CW. Davis swore that he
did make some examination. Nobody swears
| that he did not. You remember that John T..
Ketcham swore to you that Mr. Morrison was
| annointed To examine the hank and 70 aLa thu