The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-05-13
BANKING LAW UPHELD
SUPREME COURT DECISION WILL
SETTLE FATE OF BANKER BEACH.
Stringent Indiana Statute ON Banking
Sound I'm Every POint-Prima-Facie
Evidence OF Fraud.

The Supreme Court yesterday afternoon
handed down a decision in the famous
Beach bank case, which is thought to settle
the fate of John s. Beach, the well-known
banker of Terre Haute. The decision uD-
holds at every point the stringent Indiana
banking law, which makes it a criminal
offense for officer of bank to receive
deposits when he knows the bank Is insol-
vent, and makes the failure of the bank,
within thirty days after the receipt Of such
deposit. prima facie evidence of such knowl
edge and intent to defraud.
Beach was the owner of the Prairie City
Bank of Terre Haute which failed during
the panic Of 1893, in August of that
year, and was found to be in the neighbor-
hood of $4,000 to the bad. number of
indictments were found against Beach un-
der this statute, and the first case tried
was on a charge of defrauding depositor
named John Burns. The case was taken
to Park county on a change of venue and
tried before Judge White. At its close the
Judge Instructed the jury to bring in a YER
dict of acquittal. This disposed definitely
Of this one indictment, but the State ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court for a reading
of the law and a review of the case. The
court sustained the appeal in an opinion
handed down yesterday by Judge Monks,
and the effect viii be to give Beach's at
torneys very difficult job In their effort
to get him clear OF the other indictments.
In the opinion OF the Supreme Court the
case should have gone to the jury. The
trial court also erred, the Supreme Court
says, in not admitting certain evidence.
Judge Monks says the crime created by
the statute. is contaminated when the in
solvent banker fraudulently receives the de-
posit.- He is guilty of embezzlement when
he receives such deposit. The trial court
erred in refusing to admit the testimony of
the prosecuting witness on the ground that
ne owed the bank 1t was shown that the
deposit made by John Burns, the prosecut-
ing witness. was not to be applied on his
Indebtedness to the bank The Supreme
Court DECISION. as summarized. is as fol-
an Indictment states facts sufficient
TO show that public offense has
been committed should be present
in arrest. 2. When the offense charged il
a statutory one II Is not necessary to sci
out in the indictment the facts constituting
the offense. but it may be charged in the
language of the statute or in terms equiv
alent thereto. 3. The act of the Legisla-
ture which. provides that a banker on re-
ceiving a deposit within thirty days prior
to the time the bank fails shall be prima
facie evidence of intent to defraud on the
part Of the banker is constitutional. 4
When money Is deposited with a banker
and is not paid on account of the insolven.
cy of the banker when the deposit was
made. then. the money is lost within the
pension or involuntary liquidation of the
banker, by means of insolvency, shortly
after the receipt of the deposit relates bach
the deposit was at that time lost to the
deposition. 5. A bank has no right to ap
ply a deposit to debt owed by the de.
postor until the Indebtedness has matured
6. The appraisement OF an insolvent prop
erty is competent evidence TO be introduced
tending to prove insolvency.