The copper country evening news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 18??-1907, 1896-03-31

An Important Dscision in Which the Law
Tor the Protection of Bank Dopositors l.
Upheld--The Meadowcroft Brothers Are
Found Guilty of Receiving Deposits
when They Knew Their hank Was In
-soivent-sentenee Of One Year Stands.
CHICAGO, March 3l-The supreme
court of Illinois has sustained tho oonvic.
ton Of Frank Il. and CHARLES j. Meadow
croft, the bankers, who were found guilty
Dec. IA. 1874 Of receiving deposits when
involvent, punishment boiEg fixsd Mt
fine of s2S each and one years imprison-
ment in the penitentiary. This decision
marks tho close OF one of the most Stub
bornly contested cases that has S~fcr
passed through the courts OF Illinois
The Meadowcroft brothers closed their
doors June 3 1898 In the following April
they were indicted under tho act for the
protection of bank deposltors, which
makes it u criminal offense foe banker
to receive depo sits when insolvent. The
complaint on which the bankers were
brought to trial was made by John j.
Collins, who sNore thai he had deposited
$500 with the Meadowcrofts on the day
they suspended business.
The Bankers Defensc.
Tho defense uf the bankers. which was
conducted by Mcssrs Ed ly. House and
Collins, was almost entirely technical
The lawyers contended that there was no
offense under the statute unless the de-
posit was wholly lost tO tho depositor
They emphaslz ii this contention by max
ing n tender OF 500. with interest, to
Collins during the trial. Collins refused
the money. aud Judge Brentano allowed
the case to go to the jury. The jury found
the prisoner guilty and the case was
taken to the supreme court on claims OF
error in the trial court, and the unconsti-
tutionality OF the stature In the decis'
ion handed down NJ Ottawa Saturday the
court said:
"rhe view we have taken of the statute
eliminates from consideration most, IL
not all. of the objections that are urged by
plaintiffs in error to the ruling of the
trial court on questions relating to the
admissibility OF testimony and upon the
Instructions IL Is manifest in these rul.
ings the trial court hel the law more
strongly in favor of the plaintiffs in error
and against the prosecution than was war
at the trial much greater burden ol
proof th IN the law imposed upon it, Tho
result was thai the rulings upon matters
Of evidence aud upon Instructions wcr,
more favorable TO plaintiffs in error than
they were enliblei To, AM they have nj
just ground OF complaint in that regard
Eyidenee sustsins the Verdict.
''The evidence abnndtnily sust,ns TN
verdict of the jury, which was the pay
ment Of iinc OF $2S and I'm addition
thereto an imprisonment in the psniten
tary for term of one year. The plain
tffs in error fled two objections to th'
form of The verdict First, that the jury
did not find in their verdict the sum o
money or the value of the deposit embez
zlcd; that the punishment by the man
date of ths statute must be Imprisonment
or fine, the Imprisonment being optiona
with the jury, and that this hn'
L must bc fixed by the jury at ,
sum that Is donble the amount tha
| is embe zzleA;. seconl. that 10 fixed n join
instead of a separate punishment for th'
two defendants. The court holds the frs
claim, as argued, is too broad, and th'
rules of common law do not require tbs
| jury to find the value of properly stoler
| or embezzled As to the second objection
| the court says the verdict Is very inform
| al, but would without doubt be regarded
as sufficiently distinct fixing OF punish
ment at Imprisonment for year agains
| cash defendant Ths court finds no error
| In the recorl for which the judgment
| should be reversed, and IL Is therefore af
frmed -