Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-12-09

necessary in order to avoid detection
by a cursory examination, to doc
tor the books so that they would not
show what was going on. That was
done by the bookkeeper. And the de-
posit slips were changed IN the way
have suggested That was done by
the paying teller When 1t was
necessary to falsify the records of
the certified checks that was done by
the receiving teller, to some extent.
The whole scheme necessarily in
Volved knowledge on the part or the
men I have spoken of.
Now, of course, these men are
criminally guilty. The question is,
what is the exact character OF the
crime for which they should be in
dicted?
Let me read you the Hist section
of our crimesAact so far as 1t bears
upon what I have heretofore said in
relation to this matter:
"'Any officer, employee or agent
of any trust company of this
State, who for his own private use
and benefit shall embezzle or
convert to his own use any money,
bank bill or note, or other prop
erty of the corporation with in
tent to defraud the corporation,
or any such officer. employee or
agent who shall make or cause to
be made any false entry on any
book or account of such corpora
ton, or in any way falsely keep
the accounts OF said corporation
with intent to steal, embezzle or
defraud, shall be guilty of high
misdemeanor.'
Now that section applies to every
act I have referred to here--from the
taking of the money and the embez-
lement of the money through the
keeping Of false books by the book
keeper, to the making of false entries
upon those books or the keeping of
false accounts in any way. And that
covers not only entries In the books,
but the papers which go to make up
the accounts of the bank--the deposit
slips, oertification records and mat
ters of that kind.
$50 If your invest igation shall sat
isfy you that the facts are as have
told them to You thus far, 1t will be
your duty to indict the cashier and
every other member of the working
force of the bank that has partici-
pated in the looting of 1t in any ct
the matters I have specified under
this Hist section of the banking act.
act.
Not the Only Man.
But Mr.. Smith was not the only
man who got money out of this bank
fraudulently and in q criminally lille
gal manner.
There were certain depositors in
that bank who seemed either to be
friends Of the cashier or interested in
outside concerns in which the cashier
was--I say cashier; l mean Smith
and were permitted without regard to
the amount Of money they had on de-
post to take out the funds of the bank
ad libitum.
Zone man who might have a deposit
of $25 in the bank would present his
check for certification for $500, and
1t would be certified upon the order of
the cashier by the teller notwith-
standing the fact that the teller knew
that their account would not stand
any such draft.
In order to prevent knowledge of
this transaction from reaching some
body else, perhaps the banking de-
partment and the board of directors
or the executive committee of the
board--in order to conceal that act. no
record would be made of the certifica-
ton at all and the bank would be de-
prived of that money with as little
hesitation az if 1t were an overdraft
of $3.50.
"The investigation shows that one
of these favored depositors was per-
mitted to take out of that bank from
time to time something like $4,000,
and another man $4,000. and another
man $4,000 and one of the directors
nearly $4,000.
s.Sometimes certified checks certify
ing that the director had deposits ne
did not, have were paid, and at others
checks would be drawn by this man
and paid out OF the assets of the bank
1.-THE mere fact that you or should
happen to overdraw our account for
small amount in the bank we favor
with our deposits isn't criminal. But
If it is done to any such extent as
have intimated appears in this case,
without any attempt to make good,
IL seems to me to be demonstrable
that that course must have been the
result of an arrangement between
Smith and probably some of the other
employees of the bank, and the man
who made those overdrafts-an ar
rangement the purport of which was
that these men should be permitted
to use the funds of the bank, acquir-
ing them In the way have described.
for their own private purposes.
Reads from crimes Act
Now, let me read. to you the thirty
seventh section of the crimes act:
ANY two or more persons who
shall combine, conspire or bind
themselves by agreement of other
alliance to cheat and defraud any
person of any property
or to obtain money by false pre-
fences, shall be guilty of mis-
demeanor.'
1T seems to me that the facts
which I have recited demonstrate
that these Overdrafts must have been
the result of prearranged scheme
between the person who got the
money and the secretary and treas
urer of this institution, and perhaps
of others. But even if there were no
others In this scheme except the man
who drew this money out of the bank
to the extent of thousands and thou
sands of dollars and Smith there was
a conspiracy to defraud the bank.
There was no present intention
when the money was taken out to
pay 1t back, and 1t is just as much
a cheat to make a deliberate over
draft in that. way as to obtain money
under false pretences.
''It is just as much crime as If
the cashier had taken the money out
of the vaults of the bank and specu-
lated in Wall Street, intending to re-
store it when he had received the
proceeds of O. successful speculation.
You can't even salve your con-
science by any such excuse as that,
much less escape punishment, by ex-
pecting to return the money you have
fraudulently obtained, IL in the future
you may be able to do so, and so in
each one of these cases-and there are
too many TO name particular ones
If you find any such overdrafts as
have mentioned, / think you must be
satisfied that 1t was the result of an
agreement between the drawers Of
these checks and one or more officers
in the bank. You must be satisfied 1T
was the result of a conspiracy.
I,....zz-.. bis.