The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-29
TIE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE
Both Demand That the Verdict Against
New and Wright Be Set Aside.
Judge Walker Grants a New Trial in the
Bank Case-A Complete and Thorough
Vindication of the Defendants.
In Room 3, Superior Court. Judge Walker yes

In Room 8, superior Court, Judge Walker yes |
terday delivered the following opinion:
William Needham ct al vs. John G. New ct al. No.
3210S
This suit is brought by William Needham.
Peter J. Banta. Peter Ditmars, Jane NJ Ketcham.
Frederick A. w. Davis and John L. Ketcharn as
surviving partners of William H. Morrison in
the firm known as ''The Indiana Banking Com
pany; against John G. New. John c. Wright
and Samuel Miller, partner in the Indiana
Banking Company at the the time of the trans
actions complained of. He was made party
defendant because he refused to join as plaintiff
with the other partners in bringing this suit and
is practically out of the case
The complaint is in two paragranhs The
charge in the first is, substantially that the trans
actions occurred on or about the 2Sth day of
February, 1875 that for long time prior to said
date the defendants, New and Wright, had been
large stockholders in the First National Bank of
Indianapolis, and held the Offices of president
and vice-president of said bank that they were
well acquainted with the financial condition of
the bank of which they were the officers; that
the Indiana Banking Company, and each Of the
members. were ignorant of the actual condition
of said First National Bank, of which fact the
defendants had full knowledge that New and
Wright we'll knew that said First National Bank
was burdened with large amount of worthless
notes, accounts and other property; that
James L. Slaughter and Carey w,
Miller had embez2led a large amount of
the banks funds; that the bank held
that said worthless paper and forged bonds were
carried on the books of the bank at face or par:
that said forged bonds and worthless paper
amounted to $5OOOO0; that the Slaughter and
Miller embellishments were not shown on the
banks books, but that large part of said en-
bezzled funds were carried as cash on the coun-
ter of said bank, and that the stock was not
worth par or face value; that New and Wright,
with full knowledge of all the facts entered into
conspiracy to conceal the condition of the bank
from the Indiana Banking Company; that New
and Wright proposed to sell to VIM. FL. Morrison
1855 shares of stock of 800 each for $500, $685.
that VIM. Fl. Morrison, in said transaction, was
acting for the Indiana Banking Company; that
to induce Morrison to buy said stock New and
Wright made to him the following false and
fraudulent represen tations that the books of the
bank showed the stock to begworth 100 per cent
premium; that there were no skeletons in their
closets; that there was nothing rotten in the af
fairs of said bank; that its assets were in good
shape; that all bills receivable were we'll secured
Oy good personal security or undoubted collater-
ais; that all were good beyond doubt that it was
useless and would occupy time to examine the
affairs of said bank; that everything was all
right and that there was an undoubted surplus
of assets of $500. 000 and that Morrison was ig-
norant of the condition of the bank, and relied
upon these statements and representations of
New and Wright, and believed them to
be true, and bought the shares of
stock heretofore mentioned, paying therefor the
sum of 1892, 700; that the stock was paidefor
by said Morrison out of the partnership fund of
the Indiana Banking Company; that Morrison
and Miller held the stock for the Indiana Bank
ing Company, and charging that at the time of
the transaction New and Wright we'll knew that
said stock not worth par; that there was
worthless and unsecured paper then in bank to
the amount Of 900; that the Slaughter and
Miller defacation $85 O00 that there were
$40, 600 of forged United States bonds; that Nor
rson and Miller and the Indiana Banking Com
pany did not learn the true condition of said
bank until in the year 1880. That Morrison de-
parted this life in 1881.
The second paragraph of the complaint is
substantially the the first, except in the
following particulars: 1t averred that New and
Wright knew that the First National Bank owed
million of dollars; that it carried on its books,
as good and available assets, worthless paper to
the amount of $500, 000 that it carried forged
United States bonds to the amount of SAC, 900;
that it carried bills receivable to the amount of
$780, 600; that the Slaughter and Miller shortage
was $75 000 and that the stock was not worth
par 1t is also alleged that the Indiana Banking
Company did not know the condition of the said
First National Bank; but that New and Wright,
knowing these facts. determined to conceal the
condition of the same from the Indiana Banking
Company, and proposed to said Indiana Banking
Company, through its President Mr.. Morrison.
to sell to said Indiana Banking Company the
stock then held by New and Wright 1856
shares-at $165 per share, and as an induce
ment thereto made the false and fraudulent repre-
sensations i'll substance as set out In the first para
agranh of the complaint, averring knowledge
and ignorance of the true condition of the bank
On the part of the purchasers, and that they re-
lied upon such representations in making the
purchase.
The defendants New and Wright answered
by general denial and plea of the statute of
limitations; that if there be any cause OF action
it accrued more than six years before the com
mencement of this suit. After denying that the
period of six years had interviewed, the plaintiffs
reply that the defendants, after the transaction,
concealed the facts from the plaintiffs, and re-
NAMED in the bank for that purpose short
time after the sale. That John G. New was alb
sent from the State on public business long
time during the period of six years, and that
John G.. Wright had abandoned his residence
here and gone to Europe, and remained there for
about two years of said PERIOD ard claimed that
under the statute such period OF absence should
be deducted from the six years limitation. The
cause was submitted to jury, and near the close
of the trial. that continued through many weeks,
demand was made on behalf OF the pialntlns
for special verdict, which, OF course. under the
statute. had to be granted. The jury accepted
and returned into open court as their verdict the
draft prepared and submitted by counsel for the
plaintiffs, adopting the verdict thus prepared for
them in its entirety, only adding thereto their
estimate of the damages sustained by the plain
tiffs; finding that the stock actually worth
800 per share, par or face value. and
that the injury sustained was the pre-
MUM paid, sixty-fve cents, amounting
to 1854, TOO The trial of the cause
extended beyond the regular term of the court,
and under the statute as provided IL such cases,
the court by order extended the term to COM
plete the trial of the cause. The verdict was
rendered on Sunday. the 18th day of July last.
and court adjourned until the following day,
when the term was closed On the lastday OF the
session the defendants filed motion for a new
trial. and among many other reasons therefor,
that the verdict not supported by sufficient
evidence was contrary thereto. and con-
trary to law On the first day of the following
term the defendants filed supplement and an
amendment to the motion for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, and on the
18th day of September, the fourth day OF the
term. the defendants filed second supplement