Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1898-12-08
JUDGE FINLETTER'S OPINION

y
Attempt to Delay Matters-TeNt o.
the Decision OverruIinG the Demur-
rers and the Motion to Quash in the
| Conspiracy Indictments.
The full text of Judge FInletter's de-
cision disposing OF the first objections
/ to the indictments in the famous con
q spiracy case follows:
| All of the questions raised by these
| denurrers and the motion to quash
| could have been as fully raised upon
motion in arrest Of Judgment after
| trial upon the merits. Such. motions
serve no good purpose. They prolohs
, the anxieties of the innocent. and they
| permit no guilty man to escape. IAey
| do not prevent the commonwealth from
| submitting other bills free of the err
rors complained about Their only ef-
feet is to postpone and delay a hnaI
| disposition of case While the right
| of defendants to use these methods
of obstruction and delay may not be
| questioned, they are regarded by the
| court with disfavor. The common
| wealth-the people-has a right, es-
| peciaIly in communities like this, TO the
| speedy determination of criminal cases.
| and the speedy punishment OF GRIM
| inaIs. The public good requires II, ana
| the interests of the innocent defendant
| demand it. 1t is necessary for the pro-
lection of the individual citizen, in MS
! life his person. and his property. In
| considering legal questions we should
| never lose sight of the point at issue
| There seems to be an idea that upon
| a demurrer all possible questions can
be raised This is a mistake. A de-
| murrer raises only the question: DO
| the charges and facts set out in the in
| dictment constitute a violation OF law
| All other questions must be raised at
| the trial. or upon motion for a new
| trial. or upon a motion in arrest Of
! judgment, or upon an appeal to the ap-
| peIlate court In commonwealth VS..
| Hartman Chief Justice Gibson indicates
the nature and character of such OBJ
| jections when he says: The counts
before us are so uncertain and bald in
| circumstances as to shed scarcely
| ray of light on the charge which the
| defendants were required to meet" He
| does not intimate that this objection
| could have been raised upon demur-
| rer.
LAW AS TO BANK CASHIERS.
| Bills Nos. 32s and 329 may be con-
/ SlOe1eu IOSelHtI- Dill NJ o-S NAoA > CO
| that the defendant, Matthew Stanley
| Quay, conspired with John s. Hopkins.
| the cashier of the Peoples bank, ito
| buy and sell stocks through the said
| John s. Hopkins" Bill No. 32S charges
| a conspiracy ito use money, the prop
| erty of the Peoples bank" The acts
| of assembly applicable to these indict-
| ments are as follows: Cashiers of
| banks engaging in other business" Act
| 81, March, 1860, section 81, Pennsylvania
| laws, 399: 'If any cashier of any bank
| of this commonwealth shall engage di-
| rectly or indirectly in the purchase or
| sale of stock, or in any other profession
| occupation or calling, other than that
| of his duty as cashier, he shall be
| guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being
thereof convicted, shall be sentenced
to pay a fine of not exceeding $500"
Cashiers of banks not to engage in
any other occupation"
| "Act 16 April 1850. section 10, Penn
| sylvania laws. 4S2: 1t shall not be law
| full for the cashier of any bank to en- .
| gage in any other profession, occupa-
ton, or calling, either directly or in
| directly than that of the duties ap-
| pertaining to the office of cashier, and
| If any cashier of a bank shall, directly
| or indirectly, engage in the purchase
and sale of stocks, or in any other pro-
fession, occupation, or calling, other
than that of his duties of cashier, such
| cashier upon conviction thereof in any
court of criminal Jurisdiction, shall be
| sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding
$500; provided, that this section shall
not be construed in such manner as to
prevent any cashier from managing
his own real estate or private property
as heretofore if such private property
be not vested in mercantile. mechanical
or manufacturing operations"
DEMURRERS ADMIT THE FACTS.
| The demurrers admit all the facts set
forth in the indictments-that the Peo-
pies bank was a bank; that Hopkins
was it's cashier; that the defendant and
Hopkins agreed together that Hopkins
ants benefit: that they should use the
money of the bank for that purpose.
! In addition to this the printed and
oral arguments of the defendants s
counsel aver that John s. Hopkins was
the cashier of the Peoples bank, said
bank being a bank of discount and de-
posit; that it does not appear in said
indictments that it was unlawful for
the said NJ. S. Quay to borrow money
from said Peoples bank"
1t would seem to be conclusive that
these admissions and averments estab-
lish that the defendant and John S.
Hopkins had conspired as charged in
the bills of Indictment, and that it
would be wiser for me to rest my de-
cision upon them than to attempt to
fortify it by reason or arguments. But
| a due regard for the rights of the de-
| PENDANTS would seem to require that
| / should consider the objections and ar
| guments of their counsel.
| 1t must be conceded that the acts of
| 1850 and 1850 make it a crime for a
cashier of any bank to directly or in
| directly engage in the purchase and
sale of stock. 1t is argued that these
acts apply under the decision to banks
of issue only. There is no such, linn
itation in the acts themselves, which
forbid the cashier of ANY bank to do
the acts complained of, and it is suffi-
cient to plead in the words of the act
If the decisions limit the statute to
banks of issue, the question whether
or not the Peoples bank is a bank of
issue can be raised at the trial. 1t is
a question of evidence, not of pleading
HOPKINS NOT THE CUSTODIAN.
1t is undoubtedly true, as argued by
counsel, that Mr.. Quay had a right to
borrow money from the Peoples bank,
but the conspiracy charged is ito use
unlawfully money the property of the
Peoples bank for the gain, benefit and
advantage of the said Matthew S.
Quay
1t no where appears in the record or
in the demurrer or in the argument
that Mr.. Hopkins had the legal custody
| of the money, nor does it appear that
| Mr.. Quay knew or had reason to be-
| ieve that Hopkins had the legal GUS
| tody of the money. 1t is charged in
the Indictment that they conspired un-
lawfully to use the money. Unlawfully
is the equivalent of without lawful
authority, or without the authority and
knowledge of the owner, the Peoples
bank. 1t was, therefore, a conspiracy
to appropriate the property of the bank
without its consent; and the bill charges
a conspiracy to commit larceny, and is,
therefore, sufficient.
This, however, is also a question of
evidence for the commonwealth to es-
tablish, or the defendant to explain,
and show that it was a loan from the
| bank.
The bills $50 and 331 are substantially
the same, so far as the questions raised
are concerned. They would be as suf-
ficient and not subject to objection If
the word "unlawfully' was stricken
out.
| GUARDING PUBLIC MONEY.