The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-24
THE MORNING SESSION.
Assistant District Attorney Corr and
Mr.. Harvey Conclude.

Mr. Harvey Conclude.
Deputy District Attorney Corr concluded
the opening argument for the government
at III o'clock yesterday morning. His en-
tire argument was to show that the de-
PENDANTS had been in dilemma, giving
no alternative but criminality to the oe-
PENDANTS as accessories to Haughey In the
misapplication of the funds and credits of
the bank. The proposition that he laid down
TO the jury upon each specific count chare
ing misapplication OF the funds was that
the paper deposited in the bank on the
first instance was either of value or it was
not If it was not of value, the misappI-
cation was made at that time in their re-
ceiving credit on worthless paper. If the
paper was Of value, then the misapplica-
ton occurred later, when they took it out
or the bank and deposited In its stead pa.
per that was worthless. This was the bur-
den Of his argument on each count in it's
order.
He also insisted that the defendants knew
that the paper deposited with the bank
which the evidence of the government
showed had not been forwarded for COL
lection, was not to be forwarded, else when
1t was taken from the bank upon renewal
and 1t was observed that 1t had not been
forwarded, they would have made some in
quiry at the bank as to the cause OF hold
ing the paper and not endeavoring to real
lie upon 1t from the persons upon whom
1t was drawn. In speaking specifically of
the transactions with the American Desk
and Seating Company, of Chicago. he ar.
gued that the defendants had knowledge
that President Dickerman, of that COM
pany. would not accept their drafts This
Is matter upon which there is a direct
contradiction between the evidence for the
government and that of the defense, Mr.
Dickerman saying that he informed both
the Collins that he would not accept drafts
while they both say nothing was said to
them about drafts.
After concluding the consideration of the
counts charging the msappication of spe-
cific sums upon certain specified dates the
assistant district attorney took up the
counts Charging the msapplication of gross
sums between certain dates. In this con-
nection he referred to the draft on the
Tufts company of New York, which was
never incorporated. He said that in at
tempting to explain this the defense had
been caught, las usual" He intimated
that the explanation by the defense as to
why the Indianapolis Office Furniture Com
pany was Incorporated was a fabrication
but did not make the direct charge. Then
Coffin. He said p b. Coffin was a man
who never paid a debt, and whose COM
panies never paid debt, man who owned
yet his note for SLIGO was placed in the
bank. and the cabinet company given credit
upon it. In connection with the counts
bank, Mr.. Corr referred to the letter of
F. A. Coffin written to Mr.. Dickerman,
asking for the loan of $25, 600 in paper for
few days to help the bank through a
slight squeeze, saying that he Yves unable
to do this in a legitimate way. This letter
was connected with the deposit of $4,000
In paper on May 9. and taken by the coun-
sci for the government as conclusive proof
against the senior Coffin Of criminality
took up the special defense of Reed. He
said Reed had come nearer telling the truth
than either of the other defendants. but
spoke Of the deposit OF the $4,000 by Reed,
all the paper of which had been drawn by
Coffin, and the kilograms sent by him to
New York and Boston to return drafts
which had been sent forward to get them
argued that the sending of these kilograms
was evidence that Reed knew the drafts
were not to be sent forward for collection.
In concluding, Mr. Corr said TO the jury:
al have tried. in general way, to give
you outline of what the evidence shows;
what is the theory OF the government. The
evidence shows that $4,000 of the money
ing in its place. A large part of the paper
Is such that the cabinet company would
and some of 1t is upon companies that have
no existence. The money is gone. Where
did II go? great many people had the
gone; the money OF the stockholders, whose
confidence was betrayed by Haughey, is
gone. +. A Coffin, with all the gall he has
after the bank had failed, wrote to his Bos,
ton manager, saying the bank with which
they did business here had failed. but II
would not embarrass them very much. as
they had moi a great deal at stake And
now. as to Reeds individual defense. He
comes before you and says. because he re-
ceived no dividends, there was no blame tc
attach 10 him. The evidence shows that
the only difference between Reed and the
other two defendants is that he came a
little nearer telling the truth than they did
and that he was not shrewd enough to de-
mand a division. He Is responsible for his
own acts. He says he had the utmost con-
fdence in the business capacity of z. A
Coffin and in his integrity, when he knew
that Coffin was running the cabinet com
pany deeply ia debt and that he was de
GERS of the government. He is as guilty un
der this Indictment as either of the Collins
Gentlemen of the jury, you have respon
sible duty to perform. one that you owe &C
yourselves and the community. The bank
ing business, rs carried on under the SUI
pervision of the United States government
ought TO inspire the utmost confidence. and
IL the laws governing them are fully obeyeC
they will be II il were not for such mer
as Haughey and these defendants you would
not find the prevailing lack of confdenc,
in our banks. BY your verdict you may gC
a long way towards inspiring confidence II
! the financial institutions of the State anC
| her banks. You must say that men who
| deliberately take away from bank tbs
| money belonging TO widows and orphans
must suffer for It. You must say that. what
ever may be done In. other States, the fai
name OF Indiana shall not be sullied by th'
| failure OF justice You must show the people
that bank wreclxing in Indiana is an un
| profitable business"
/ Lawson NJ. Harvey then began the argu
ment for Reed specially. He first recounteC
| the evidence showing the kind Of employ
! ment this one OF the defendants had fol
! lowed for the past thirty years. He referres
/ to Corrs statement that Reed had com
nearer telling the truth than either of tn
/ other defendants, and said that Reed hat
j told the whole truth in so far as he knew
it. He said: Here are the facts, and TX
am guilty l will take my punishment" Tn
burden of his argument was that the jury
| in considering the case against Reed. Shouts
| do so I'm the light of the facts then known
| 10 Reed. and not in the light OF facts a
| they now appeared. He argued that Rec
/ was not cognizant OF all the transactions
and that many of the transactions details
| upon the witness stand as going 10 estab