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

went with New to WrightS Block, with some of tho
assets of the bank, and examined them one by
one and he tells you it has been, from that day
to this, a mystery to him why he did not finish
the examination. That is his sworn statement.
/ do not think you will believe it, because there
are other circumstances that overwholm it with
contradiction; but am only now stating to you
that even if you should take Davis as the only
testimony on that point, and put it alongside of
the memorandum that are here IN evidence. 1t
would be utterly impossible for you to go To your
jury-room and say that the purchasers were
Ignorant of the condition of the bank.
Third: Even if you should find that the In
diana Banking Company was the purchaser, and
that all the members of the firm were ignorant
of the banks condition when they purchased the
stock. you would have to find, next, that New and
Wright made representations to them. Who has
sworn to thisi Stop and think about it The
whole charge here is fraudulent representations.
Who has sworn to onel Who has sworn to any
representations OF any kind? Davis2 Yes.
Anybody elsel No, You cannot find another
item of evidence in this whole case that either
New or Wright ever made, attempted to
make any representations of any kind, with re-
gard to this bank during the negotiations for the
be required to consider the condition of the bank,
you will have to find that New and Wright made
representations to the purchasers as 20 the con-
dition of the bank, and the value of its assets and
the amount of its liabilities. That would not be
enough. Fourth, You would have to 6nd by
fair preponderance of the evidence that the
purchasers made the purchase, relying solely
upon the representations made by New and
Wright. That is the charge in the complaint;
that they were absolutely ignorant,
and relied wholly upon the representations
made. Stop and consider that for mo-
ment. How could you find that with this evil
dence before you9 1t is utterly impossible.
When you undertake to say that there were
representations made by Mr. New and MIR.
Wright, who are you going to say they were
made to- Who has sworn to thems OF all these
representations they have charged, who has
sworn to single one? If you should undertake
to find that they made the purchase, relying
upon representations made by New and Wright,
and III ignorance of the condition of the bank,
what are yon going to do with all these memo
randums written by Morrison? BIT even if you
could so find. Fifth you would have to so still
further and find that the representations made
by New and Wright if any were made, were
false and fraudulent, and were made knowingly,
and purpcsely, and with the express purpose and
intent of deceiving and defrauding, and that
Wright and New knew at the time they
were made that they were false. How can you
find that true from this evidenced You cannot
so find unless you disregard evidence and submit
wholly to the improved statements of plaintiffs
| counsel Sixth You would have to find, still
further, that this suit was brought within six
years from the time the right of action accrued.
Now, it is an undisputed fact that this suit was
brought on the 25th day of February, 1884, and
it is conclusivey proved that the sale of stock
was closed on the 23d day of February, 1878.
Seventh You have to be convinced by the
evidence that, if they did not bring the suit
within six years, that then either absence Of New
and Wrlght-and on that point you will be con-
trolled wholly by the instructions of the court
suspended the statute of limitations; that
something else occurred to suspend the opera
tions OF the statute. These are seven points you
must consider and decide before you can Justly
reach the consideration of the question
to the condition Uf the bank in 1873
But nasmuch as plaintiffs counsel have seen fit
4I>1s.x -l.1Il-x e
the bank in February, 1878. and the abuse of
the witnesses called by the defendants, shall,
in the course of my remarks con
slider the actual condition of the
First National Bank, in 1873, as shown by this
proof, and also its condition from that time on
down to the close of Mr. Morrison's life. But,
before do that want to call your attention to
some extraordinary conduct of counsel in this
case. cannot characterize it in any other way
than as extraordinary. | want to ask you this
question, gentlemen of jury Does it not occur to
you and has it not repeatedly occurred to you,
while you have been listening to Shepard and
ketcham, that it is quite strange that they find
it necessary to charge corruption and perjury
upon every single witness that has testified in
behalf Of these defendants? Is not such conduct
peculiar? am not misstating the facts as you
well know. say it is quite extraordinary that
plaintiffs counsel find it absolutely necessary to
charge corruption and msstatement of facts
upon every single witness that has testified to a
material fact in this case on side. Now,
does it not strike you that their case
must be in rather a desperate condition
since it requires such conduct as that!
Seven men have been brought here as witnesses
for these defendants. Who are they? William
H. English is one, A. ID. Lynch is two, John H.
Holiday is three, Hervey Bates is four, John c.
McCutcheon is five, John c. New is six and
John c. Wright is seven, and every one of
them has been charged by these counsel with cor
ruption lying, misstatement of facts. Is
that not strange and does it not show the rot
tenness Of their casel / have had toerably
busy practice for over twenty five years, and in
all these years have never seen nor heard such
causeless and utterly groundless abuse of wit
nesses such appeals to prejudice and such
glazing distortion and misStatement of facts
proved as you have heard in this case If that
is the style of jury trials in this latter day. am
glad, gentlemen of the jury, that my days OF
jury trials are rapidly drawing to close, because
that is not my idea of practicing law; it is not
my idea of the duties of counsel in IL case; it is
not my idea of the proprieties, rights and
obligations that belong to the practice
of law. 1t is an attempt, gentlemen
of the jury, to try case on feigned issues, and
on vituperation, SANDER and abuse of good
citizens. Let US look at some of these charges
let US consider Mr.. Shepard's argument. He
says that Mr.. English has sworn falsely in regard
to the resolution of Aug. g. 1873 and in regard
to the taking of the assets of the bank in pay
ment for his stock You heard Mr. English
testify. Mr.. Shepard. after stating what he did
testify, says: Il tell you that is not true he did
so, and So" Again, as to Augustus d. Lynch
Mr.. Shepard charges that ''Mr. Lynch is either
ignorant or corrupt" Then he charges that he
has sworn falsely. in this particular; although
Mr. Lynch that he did not show that
anonymous letter. or tell the bank officers he was
about to make the Oct. examination. Shepard
says: Il say to you that MIR. Lynch did tell the
bank managers of this letter" Who has sworn
to itl 1t is an open charge of corruption and
perjury against Augustus d. Lynch Who has
sworn to it! What right have counsel to try to
damn mans character and reputation by such
charges, without any evidence to support them!
What do you think of case that requires Of
counsel such work that?
But let us 60 Shepard says, again, in re-
gard to Mr.. Lynch. in speaking of the clerical
omission of the 800, 900 in the October (1S77)
report-that, you remember, was written cross
wise on Mr.. Lynchs examination book and
instead of reporting $l3l 900, he failed to notice