The Indianapolis journal., 1895-10-20

Full, and Comprehends All the Phases
Of the CaSe

OF the Case.
Judge Baker began his charge to the jury
by reciting the coun9 from No. 10 No.
Is He dwelt at some length on the charges
against Theodore Haughey. and then passed
on to the defendant He cautioned the jury
that it was not authorized to find the
defendant guilty OF any other charge of
aiding sand abetting in the misappleation
or the banks funds except those made
specific by the election OF the government.
Before you can find the defendant gull
ty, continued the court, .of aiding and
aDetting in the willful misapplication of the
moneys Or funds as charged YOU must be
sausned that the curled hair company and
ne Eiue company, at the time they OBJ
tdineu the moneys or funds charged TO have
er-< Deen mlsaPpIed, were insolvent; that the
money SO furnished by the bank, or some
par. Ha1osdu OF II, was lost; that Theodore p.
1ausney intended at the time the discount
was made or the money was furnished to
defraud the bank as charged, and that i'm
recsiving and applying the moneys so fur
nisned 10 the use Of said companies or one
of them. the defendant aided and abetted
intent Ao A'Ao
If the government, as to any count or
counts OF the Indictment now on trial be-
Iore you, has failed to prove the material
asiiegations therein contained to your salts
tdctlon beyond a reasonable doubt II will
De your duty TO find the defendant not
guilty as to such count or counts. If how
dogf doubt You tsaf are satisfied beyond reasonable
OF the wiilful misapplication OF the moneys,
iunds FUNDS! or credits OF the Indianapolis Ma
Iional Bank, with intent to injure and
defraud said bank as charged in any count
OF tne Indictment now on trial relating
fed that the defendant' aTr Scbnyler saus- e
Haughey, unlawfully and knowingly and
with with TT, the like intent, aided and abetted
mlsapplicauon, as charged in such count
or counts of the indictment. then you
stands charged in such count or counts of
the indictments, so far as you find such
count conr or counts to have been proved, to
The mere taking. of worthless paper would
not of itself establish the guilt of Theodore
discounts were made in bad faith for the
fraudulent purpose OF giving gain or ad-
aa'ds9 w b11e, 70 some other person and not in
the oifcer making them, passes the divid-
ing line between honesty and dishonesty,
ana MS action, IL done TO injure the bank
ing association, is criminal. Theodore p.
fdaughey is shown TO have had authority
70 make discounts Of paper offered TO the
Dank for discount and is shown to have
had authority TO have the amounts of such
loans and discounts placed to the credits
or the borrower. But this authority, the
court held, extended only to legitimate
transactions.
"If fictitious and fraudulent credits were
given upon the books of the bank to the
curled hair company or TO the glue COM
pany or TO Theodore p. Haughey," continued
thereby acquired any right to the funds of
the bank represented by such credits. A
credit upon the books OF the bank obtained
by the knowing and unauthorized accept
ance of valueless paper, or by credits fraud
ulently given without some consideration
supposed to be valid passing to the bank.
Is no credit in legal sense, and when the
funds Of the bank are drawn out by checks
upon such credits, they are wrongfuly OBJ
such facts any therefore If The cnTled hair Gr
company, or the glue company or Theodore
p. Haughey obtained credit upon the books
of the bank by making and negotiating to
it notes, drafts or other paper which Theo-
dore p. Haughey and the defendant
Schuyler c. Haughey, at the time knew did
with the intent TO injure and defraud the
bank, such credits gave neither said
Haughey nor either of said companies any
right to draw against them, and the pay
ment of checks drawn by either of said COM
panies or said Theodore p: .Haughey upon
wrongful misapplication of the funds of the
bank used in paying such checks, If they
were paid with the intention to injure and
After instructing the jury as to the theory
of reasonable doubt in the case of Theodore
P. Haughey. the court said:
I'm order TO make the defendant,
schuyler @ Haughey, liable as an alder
and abetter, as charged in the indictment,
it is necessary that he should be proved to
have done or said something showing his
consent to, or participating in the unlaw
ful and criminal acts of Theodore p.
tion in manner and form as charged in the
indictment.
I'm determining whether Theodore P.
Haughey and the defendant, Schuyler c.
Haughey, had the criminal intent to de-
fraud as charged, or whether they acted
in good faith. you will take into consider
lationship TO each other, the course of
business between them as we'll as be-
glue company, and the bank, and all the
other facts and circumstances in proof
before you; Before you can find the de,
in any count of the indictment, you must
find that the moneys, funds or credits of
the bank, or some material part of them,
have been willfully misapplied by Theo-
dore p. Haughey, as charged, with the
intent to injure and defraud the. bank as
Schuyler G. Haughey. knowingly aided
and abetted such willful misapplication
with the like intent You will look to all
questions. If you should find that moneys,
funds or credits. have been wrongfully
withdrawn from the. bank by Theodore P.
not find the defendant, SCHUYLER c.
Haughey, guilty unless you find that they
charged and with the fraudulent intent
on bis part TO willfully misapply the same
as charged. and that the defendant know
such willful nisapplication with the like
.'You may find the defendant, Schuyler C.
Haughey, guilty upon all the counts OF the
Indictment upon which he is now upon trial
if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that the proofs justify it. Or you
may find the defendant guilty upon any one
or more of the counts of the Indictment
and not guilty upon the others. But before
you can find the defendant guilty upon any
count of the Indictment you must be satis-
fed of his guilt in manner and form as
charged in some one of the counts of the
indictment upon which he Is on trial be-
yond a reasonable doubt.
by the statute of limitations the defend
ant cannot be convicted of any Of the Of
fenses charged unless the same are shown
to have been committed within three years
next preceding the time of the finding and
return of the Indictment, which was on the
2lst day of December, 1893.''
The court went on to say that the burden
of proving the defendant guilty rested upon
the government. Both Theodore p. Haughey
and the defendant were presumed to be in
nocent until their guilt, in manner and form
as charged in some count of the ndict-
ment was established beyond reasonable
doubt. In concluding his charge the court
addressed the jury in the following
language:
speculative notions or possibilities aris-
ing upon mere conjecture, not arising or
deducible from the proof or from the want
of it. should not be confounded with rea-
sonable doubt. A doubt suggested by the
ingenuity of counsel, or by your own in
genuity, not legitimately warranted by the
evidence, or the want Of it, or one born of
inclination q he