The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-12-08
No Decision ON the Appeal of the
Convicted indianapolis National
Bank Defrauders Before Spring.
ARGUMENT OF MR.. HOLMES
THE GOVERNMENTS REPLY TO THE
POINTS MADE BY MR.. MILLER.
Lawrenceburg Internal Revenue Ofiice
spite ObjectOr HOlman's Protest.
special 70 the Indianapolis Journal.

Special TO the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON. Dec THE Coffin case
was concluded in the Supreme Court this
afternoon. Assistant Attorney-general
Holmes covered the points made yesterday
by Mr.. Miller. replying follows:
First-That the indictments were INSULT
cient. because they failed TO charge that
the defendants knew that Haughey was
president OF the bank, and that the de-
PENDANTS did know of the wrongful acts OF
Haughey.
To this it was replied for the govern
ment that the statute did not require knowl-
edge on the part of the defendants, and
that the indictments did charge that the
defendants acted knowingly
Second-That the indictments did not
charge the defendants as aiders and abet.
tors of Haughey, with the commission or
any crime.
To this 1t was replied that the offense
was specifically charged against Haughey
in each count, and the defendants were
charged with cooperating with him in
the commission of the ofense. and that the
law did not require the charge OF the Of
fense to be repeated in the count as to the
aiders and abettors.
Third-That the indictments did not al
lege that the defendants were officers or
agents OF the bank.
1O lHlS III WdS TtpncQ tudl lHey Oiu tOI
allege it because it not the fact,
and that the view of counsel for defend
ants that none burt officers agents OF
the bank could be guilty of aiding and abet-
ting was contrary to the language of the
statute and directly opposed to reason and
the authorities.
Fourth-That the indictments did not aver
the value of a pound sterling, but charged
the defendants with obtaining a credit for
against such deposit for the sum deposited
In pounds sterling.
To this 1T was replied: Counsel misap-
pretended the charge as made in the in
dictments. which was that the sum Of the
pounds sterling was placed to their credit
and their checks were drawn for said
sum-" that the word 'sum' was used
according to its true meaning to express
amount" that under the national bank
ing act and the usage of banks the sum
placed to the credit Of the defendants
was in dollars and cents, and not in pounds
sterling.
Fifth-That Edward Hawkins was per-
assets in his hands as receiver, when 1t
appeared that a schedule thereof had
been forwarded TO the treasury.
To this it was replied that the "sched-
ule'' was not the best evidence. nor evil
Qeuce DIT dil against THESE uelcnudnlS, tnal
the witness was not repeating the con-
tents of the schedule, but was testifying
as of his own knowledge; that the schedule
appeared to have been made by the wit
ness himself, and could only have been
used by him, if it was present. to refresh
his memory.
Sixth-That the court refused to charge
the jury that the defendants were entitled
to the presumption OF innocence, but
charged the jury that the must find upon
the facts proven alone.
To this it was replied that, while the
court had refused to grant the forty-five
instructions asked for by defendants. it had
embraced the substance of all of them;
that it correctly stated the law in its charge
to the jury, and had expressly charged that
| if the jury "can reconcile the evidence with
| any reasonable hypothesis consistent with
| the defendants innocence ii is your duty
| to do SO. and in that case find the defend
| ants not guilty.
Seventh-Thao the court had instructed
the jury improperly in its definition of a
false entry.
To this it was replied that the court
| had correctly stated the law when it
| charged the jury that if Haughey, as pres
| ident of the bank, had received CONNER
| cial paper. knowing it TO be worthless, and
| had directed cash credit to be made
| on the books of the bank for the amount
| OF such paper. with intent 70 injure and de-
| fraud the bank. such entry was a false
| entry.
| These were the principal points argued.
| although there were forty-five assignments
! of error altogether. The evidence that was
before the jury, and on which the defend
| ants were convicted. was not brought up
| in the record, and was not before the
| Supreme Court this writ of error, and
| the Supreme Court is not called on in this
case to review the action of the jury which
| found the verdict, nor to determine from
all the evidence that was before the jury
whether or not the defendants were prop
| erly convicted on the evidence. Mr.. Winter
concluded for the appellants. The decision
| of the court is not expected until some
time in the spring.