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

men as this city affords. Plaintiffs counsel have
charged every one of them with having sworn
falsely, either purposely and corruptly or by
mistake; not one of them has given true and
correct evidence, according to plaintiffs counsel.
Plaintiffs counsel have made these wanton and
wholesale charges, because they cannot make
their out of the facts if these witnesses have
testified truly. But, gentlemen if we were shut up
to the evidence of F. A w Davis, John L. Ketch-
am, and the papers that have been produced
and put in evidence here, even then every mate
rial averment of their complaint would have
been overwhelmingly denied.
Now another question: Was this suit brought
within six years after the cause of action if any
accrued What is the proofl 1t is beyond dis
pute that this suit was broaght on the 18th day
of February, 1884. Is it not equally beyond dis
pute that this trade was closed on the 23d day of
February 1879 What is the proof of it9 The
two contracts of Feb. 81 and %, signed by Nor
rison and Miller, and the $3342, 900 note, dated
Feb % and signed by Morrison and Miller prove
it; the stock was transferred on the 23d of Feb
ruary, 1873 as shown on the stock book. The
single share of stock is dated and signed the 23d
day of February, 1873. The delivery of
the stock is recognized and acknowl
edged by that receipt All the trans
actions from that hour to this with
regard to that trade have been simply and solely
payments made by Morrison and Miller on the
$342. coo note. Now, the trade closed Feb
90 1875 or not2 If you were to undertake to
find that it was not, what evidence would you
base your finding onl What evidence could you
find to support such findingl The mere fact
that Morrison and Miller made payments on the
note after Feb. % does not signify. What did
close up the trade? The transfer of the stock,
the giving of the receipt for it, and the giving of
the note and contract for the full payment for
it, closed the trade. Could Mr.. New or Mr..
Wright have claimed ownership of share of
that stock any hour after Feb. %. 1872 If they
had made any such claim, Morrison and Miller
would have said to them: Look at your note;
you hold our note for payment for this stock;
you hold receipt for the delivery US of this
stock; you hold our contract, by which we as
sumo to pay $50, 900 at Hartford, Conn. you have
no right TO this stock" And they would have
been right There is not court in Christendom
that could, by replevin any other action, have
taken for Mr. New Mr.. Wright share of
that stock from Morrison and Miller after the
23d Of February, 1878. If Morrison and Miller
bought originally for themselves alone and after
wards took in with them these persons named in
exhibit y, !" or even if they took in with them
the Indiana Banking Company, that would not
change the status. If the Indiana Banking Com
pany became interested in that stock after the
purchase by Morrison and Miller was concluded,
that would not make particle of difference in
this case. The point plaintiffs must establish is
that the Indiana Banking Company was the pur-
chaser from New and Wright That fact they
have failed to prove. We have proved to the
contrary by overwhelming preponderance.
Did Mr.. Wright or Mr.. New, after they had
sold and delivered their stock to Mr.. Morrison
and Mr. Miller. ever by deed or word
conceal, or attempt to conceal, any fact from
NJ orrison with regard to the condition of that
bankl Where is the slightest evidence tn at
they did? There is not the shadow of shade of
evidence tending to support any such charge.