5841. Indiana Banking Company (Indianapolis, IN)

Article Text

JOHN M. BUTLER, ESQ., IN THE CASE OF WILLIAM NEEDHAM et al. VS. JOHN C. WRIGHT et al. SUPERIOR COURT, MARION COUNTY. DELIVERED AT INDIANAPOLIS, JULY 9 and 10, 1885. THURSDAY, July 9, 1885. MR. BUTLER-May it Please the Court; Gentlemen of the Jury: If the closing statements of Mr. Ketcham were true, you would not be in this jury-box trying this case. He told you that these plaintiffs had no interest in this case; that the Indiana Banking Company is the real party in interest in this suit, and that the action is for the protection of the creditors of the Indiana Banking Company. Now, Mr. Ketcham knows that is not correct. The Indiana Banking Company broke up a year or two ago, and is now in the hands of a receiver. The Court will tell you that if the Indiana Banking Company had any right of action against John C. New and John C. Wright its receiver would be the only proper party plaintiff. These plaintiffs could not bring the suit under such circumstances, because they are members of the Indiana Banking Company, as constituted at the time of its disastrous failure. Now, what was that statement made for, gentlemen? It was just such a statement as eighttenths of two days and three-quarters of talking has been; that is, to draw your minds away from the case you are sworn to try, and cause you to try it on prejudice rather than evidence. If these plaintiffs have not any interest in this suit, they have perjured themselves, and their lawyers have brought a suit they had no au thority to bring. What sort of suit is this? It is not the suit of the surviving partners of the Indiana Banking Company, that broke up. Ketcham and Shepard know that: Claypool knows that: but they are surviving partners of an institution that existed seven years ago, and that ceased to exist not less than four years ago. ask the Court to instruct this jury that the Indiana Banking Company that these plaintiffs belonged to, and for which they sue as surviving partners, absolutely ceased to exist on the 15th day of March, 1881. It never has existed since, and every lawyer engaged in this cause knows that fact. What is the purpose of lugging into this suit the breaking up of the In diana Banking Company, and making pathetic appeals for 'mother, and brother, and "brother- in law?" These matters are not in the case. Nobody has sworn in this case that the Indiana Banking Company that broke up ever had, or claimed to have, any right of action against these parties-none whatever Now, gentlemen, it may come in my way sometime during this argument, to show what did break up the Indiana Banking Company. The evidence here before you, justly considered and carefully weighed, shows that the Indiana Banking Company has been rotten to the core for ten years. At the very time that these plaintiffs say that with a capital of only $300,000 they proposed to invest $400,000 in national bank stock, they say themselves that if they had been put into the hands of a receiver it would have been difficult for them to have paid their debts. That is the shape the Indiana Banking Company was in. I will have more to say about that hereafter. Now, let us come back to the cases little while. You have listened to hours and days of causeless tirades against witnesses, abuse of these defend ants, and glaring misstatements of the facts proved. us first examine the case, and discov er. if we can, how it stands on undisputed facts-facts about which there is absolutely no dispute. In 1863 the First National Bank was created. It was one of the first experiments in the great ex periment that determined whether the government should go up or down. It was a successan eminent success. It passed along through years of prosperity until in 1877 it had paid out to its stockholders over a million dollars in divi dends, besides returning to them part of their original capital. It had transacted millions upon millions of dollars of business for the general government without the loss of a copper cent to the general government It was known and honored as a banking institution throughout the United States. Plaintiffs' counsel make great ado about an overdraft on Winslow, Lanier & Co. for $57,000 Mr. English tells you that that was an ordinary transaction, and that such overdrafts, either by or against the bank, were neither strange nor unusual. It was an institution of high credit and of extensive and valuable business connections. In 1877, in July, it was discovered that overdrafts had been allowed by the cashier. It seems from the evidence that both the president, Mr. English, and the vicepresident, Mr. New, found out that fact at about the same time. The day the president found out that fact he came to the conclusion that it was best to have only one man at the helm-that man to be absolutely supreme in the control of the bank. He made up his mind that that should be the case if he stayed in the bank. and consequently made a proposition to M. New to either buy New's stock or sell his stock to New. His proposition was to give or take one hundred and sixty cents to the dollar for the stock. Mr. English testifies that when he made that proposition he expected to be the purchaser, and was surprised that he was not the purchaser. That proposition was accepted by Mr. New. Now, it is an undisputed fact that Mr. New did not buy from Mr. English a controlling interest in that bank. Mr. English only had 1,622 shares of the capital stock of the bank, and, consequently, although he sold a non controlling inierest, he sold it at $1 60: and, at the same time, he was willing to give for Mr. New's 750 shares a like amount per share. Now, remember the fact that Mr. English did not sell a controlling interest in the bank, but he sold at $1.60 notwith standing. Time passed on. Mr. New became president and Mr. Wright vice president. I will skip every point on which there can be the slightest disagreement. During that year, in September, 1877, it was discovered that there was something wrong with the 5 per cent. redemption fund. Mr. New went to Washington to look after the matter, and the day after he came back from Washington Mr. Slaughter left the bank, and sent in his resignation. There is no dispute about these facts. What transpired at Washington will come to at another point. I am now only giving the plain, unvarnished, un contradicted facts. A count of the cash was made that night, and it was found $13,000 short, and overdrafts, tickets and memorandum checks were found on the counter representing $11,000 or $12,000 more, making between $23,000 and $24,000 that the bank officers regarded as lost. John C. McCutcheon was duly elected cashier that same day and it is an undisputed fact that he has been cashier of the bank ever since. He was cashier of the old bank until it went into liquidation, and has been the cashier of the new bank ever since it was organized down to this hour, and is now the cashier of that bank under Mr. English's administration. There is no dis pute about that. As soon as he was elected cashier an investigation was begun, & careful, thorough investigation of the condition of the bank and its assets. As that investigation neared the receiving teller's depart ment, the receiving teller went up to Mr. New's house one evening and confessed that he had abstracted $33, 000 of the bank's money. Plaintiff's