The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-28
4 %
TWO new MOTIONS.
IN BANK c Asses
Counsel Argue at Length. and
Court Takes Matter Under
4 Amusement.
PLANS FOR NEW CHURCH
Mcthodists Will Erect $4,000
Edifce in Petersburg.
Others News.
Times-Dispatch Bureau,
o Bollingbrook Street.
Phone 1887.
Pctcrshnrr. Va An,

petersburg, Va, February 81.
The Appomattox Trust Company
cases, in which Charles Hall Davis and
Carter Il. Bishop stand ind!cte ed for the
making of an alleged false report OF
inc condition OF the bank in August,
19oS, to the State Corporation Commits.
slon came up in the Hastings Court
THIS morning on preliminary proceed
ings. Counsel for the defendants first
submitted motion TO quash the in
T dictment, and then entered demur-
ror and both were argued at length
by counsel for the defense In support
and by Commemorative Attorney r.
III. Mann In opposition The argument
involved many law points OF interest
and Importance.
Motion TO Quash.
The points set forth ana elaborated
In the motion 70 quash were as fol-
lows:
l. No rules were ever adopted pre-
scribing the time or or form for mak-
Ing statements by banks to tho state
Corporation Commission. The Con-
stitution. Section lEs. requires that
the State Corporation Commission
shall prescribe such forms Tho statute
lsectlon ll69) requires that tho State
Corporation Commission EhaIl pre-
scribe the form of suoh reports, and
shall, by its rules, prescribe tho time
~ dA1h'is bucn statements. Inc Con-
Etitution. section 1856. requires that
the State Corporation Commission
shall keep permanent record of all
OF Its judgments, rules and orders
Section 1879 OF poilard's Code, requires
that the State Corporation Commission.
before adopting any general rule shall
give notice on such intention in the
newspapers. and that after such rule is
adopted 1t shall be published in the
newspapers not less than once a week
Tor four consecutive weekH. and shall
also, as long as II rcmaina In effect
be published in each subsequent report
OF the commission. 1t does not appear
hy any report OF the commission, or,
In fact, by tho records which the con-
mission Is required BY the Constitution
TO keep, that any rulo Of any kind
wac ever adopted BY the commission
prescribing the time or the form of
making such reports. without which
action no such offense az is here
charged could be committed.
2. That the statute in the form in
which It was in 1905 required only one
report TO be made In each year, while
II appears by the records of this court
in the other indictments against Mr..
Bishop that more than one report was
called for In 1905
8. Tha. our statute Ia so drawn as
TO embrace within 1t a part or u
bniied 6thtea statute, and also Che
rules OF the Comptroller OF the Cur
rency. without setting forth the same
at length. which is In conflict with
sections 90 and b2 OF tho Constitution.
I. because necessary part of the
punishment II prescribed Is a fine,
while section 3Ss9 or the Code pro-
vides that no prosecution shall be
Brought to recover a fine after ono
year The offense in this case is al
years before tho Indictment was found.
8. Tho dates OF the call and of tho
making OF the report arc alleged In
the indictment as the 10th day OF Au-
gust 1908. lille 1t appears by the
call and report tina, the call was mace
on July II. 1905 end the report was
made to the State Corporation Conn
mission on August II. 1908
Points of Demurrer
l. Ihat the Indictment alleges that
the statement was on, and in accord
ance with the forms required by the
pursuant 10 the statute In such
case made and provided. It is. there
fore. alleged that Mr.. Bishop did cx-
Rctly what he ought TO have done In
making the report.
2. That the indictment does not al
lege that the statement was made by
the bank, which was required by the
law to make It. but alleges that the
report was made by the cashier, who
was only required to certify It: nor
does the indictment allege that the
cashier was authorized to make such
statement
3. That the indictment is really for
perjury. with which is Joined In the
same count charge of making false
statement of the condition of the bank,
which statement the cashier was not
required by law to make.
4. That section 1863 OF the Code re-
nuires the cashier or president to GER
tify tho statement under oath, so that,
If he certities It falsely, he is guilty
of perjury. But section 1910 deals |
with separate ofense. 1t provides
for fine II the bank fails to make
a statement, but when it deals with
the officers of the hank. IL refers only
to such false statements of the condi-