The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1912-12-17

piOhioo"y hctSs VI VhiNh uOte tHe
following is true copy:
"2O, 10000.
Gambler, o., Feb. II, 1905.
Three years after date, we or either
Of us. promise to pay to the order of
the Gambler Savings Bank Co., Twen.
ty Thousand and no.100 Dollars with
int. at per cent payable annually.
Value received.
George w. Porterfield,
Priscilla Porterfield."
and confines with the necessary aver.
ments.
In the trial Of Ohio VS.. U. 8. Lybar.
ger, a separate and distinct case heard
at the last term of this court, the eyi.
dence brought out the above state Of
facts in regard to the circumstances
surrounding the execution and deliv.
cry Of the note in question. That
trial, together with personal investi.
CATION since, has established the fact
conclusively, that no crime was com.
mitted in either inducing or procur.
ing George w. Porterfeld and wife to
executive and deliver the note in ques.
tion, but that Porterfield voluntarily
gave the same. acting upon the advice
OF his attorneys in order to save the
balance Of his property. II George
w. Porterfield were alive today, an
of the circumstances un.
der which he entered the banking
partnership Of Hills and Lybarger
might be interesting and fruitful, but
it could throw no new light on this
case.
That the manifold financial ventures
Of Hills undermined the Gambler sav.
ings Bank, and ultimately wrecked
The Gambler Banking Company, it's
successor, no one will deny. As to
whether this banking disaster may
be attributed to the optimistic specu-
lation or to the crooked manipulation
of Hills, his friends and foes will ar.
rive at different conclusions.
Disappointed depositors will wonder
how It Is possible that banker may
dissipate the assets of his institution
and not be criminally liable. But
when they realize that Ohio had no
banking law until the year 1908 which
punished embezzlement, misapplica.
tion or abstraction of funds by any one
connected with the bank, the only
Ohio statute prior to that date apply.
ing solely to what are known as Free
banks, there being less than half
dozen of these in the state, and the
national banks being governed and
controlled by Federal statutes, they
will fully appreciate what fertile
field Ohio afforded for the criminaloid,
that growing class guilty of fagitious
practices which have not yet been con.
demned by statutory enactment.
In the Gambler matter, common lar
ccny could not be successfully prose
cuted, for the original deposits were
lawful, and consequently, there could
be no wrongful or unlawful taking by
the bank in receiving them. A prose.
cutiOn for common embeZzlement
could not be maintained, for, with the
establishment of the relation of ordin.
airy debtor and creditor between the
bank and it's depositors according to
our supreme court, money once de-
posted becomes the property of the
bank, no trustee relation existing, and
Of course, the bank could not embezzle
its own property.
Since 1908, such an anomaly in the
law would not be possible, and keen
vision back in 1905 may have forecast
the consequences Of continuation Of
the Gambler Savings Bank.
At any rate, am thoroughly con-
vinced that the men accused in the
indictment before the court, are who'll
ly guiltless of the crime therein
charged. and l wish at this time to
enter nolle prOsequi.
This long statement has been made
to the court because of the unusual
interest in the case, and in order to
show the real facts of the transaction
involved.
.