Article Text
The Phonex Bank Case. The particulars of the decision of the Phoenix Bank case, which was lately argued by Attorney General Howard, are quoted below from the New York Tribune. We have before published a report of the case, showing the grounds of the ac tion, but the judicial opinion, as reported, gives the whole merits of the case. The Detroit Free Press has covered the Attorney General with all manner of aspersion, from time to time, because the law courts, as they are wont to do, have taken their own time in which to decide. The decision of the Phoenix Bank case is another triumph of Mr. Attorney Howard-a double triumph-firet as a lawyer, and second as a politician, because he was sought to be laughed down by a clique of the Michigan Bar for daring to institute the suit, and sought to be written down and slandered down by the Locofoco press, for daring to impugn the standing of "their first men." Mr. Howard, as is usual with him, trusted to his legal conclusions, made himself sure of his proofs, by investigation and careful research, and relied upon his powers of argument to carry the minds of the tribunal to his proposed result. On this he has succeeded, while during the entire course of the two trials, from first to last, with hardly the intermission of a week, he has been assailed by his enewies with unfounded and paltry charges, unworthy to be brought against a man whom the masses of Michigan know to be above an act of meanness. In these regards, it is fit to say that the result of the Phoenix Bank trial has been a double triumph. Such are its effects upon him, personally and politically, while the people of the State are benefitted by the exercise of his legal sagacity, his stern official integrity, and his unshrinking fearlessness, for the return of some forty-seven thousand dollars abstracted from the State Treasury by dishonest servants. There is a further point not to be lost sight of in this matter-the recovery is not simply technical, but covers the entire merits claimed by the Attorney General, even to the greatest moral and equitable extent; and these merits are all admitted by the decision of the court. This circumstance, while it adds brilliancy to the victory, furnishes a just source of consolation to some editors and not a few politicians of the Locofoco school, who have expressed a wish from time to time that this money might be refunded to the Treasury if it could only be done without defrauding the Bank, or without placing certain prominent men in a wrong light. Say the Court, the Bank is not defrauded. and the prominent men are in the right light. So may the matter end. The Tribune says: The charges in the complaint are that after the passage by the Legislature of Michigan of the act of 1837, authorizing a loan of $5,000,000 for Internal Improvement,Ithe Phoenix Bank advanced to Governor Mason $10,000 in the drafts of the Bank of the River Raisin, and Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, Detroit, which banks had then suspended specio payments; that this advance was in fact a private loan to Governor Mason, but charged by the Phoenix Bank to the State of Michigan, who refused to pay it. In 1840, the Phonix Bank authorized Charles Stewart to settle the claim with the Banks against which the drafts were drawn. Settlements were made with the Michigan Banks, but the claim for the amount of the two drafts was still urged agaidst Michigan. The validity of the claim was not recognized by the legislature of that State, and in 1854 the defendants applied to the Board of State Auditors -whose business was to settle private claims against the State-for the amount of drafts and interest. In December of the same year the Auditors allowed the claim, and the defendants received on account from the State the sum of $35,603 73. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants did not fully state the facts of the case before the Board of Auditors; that they neglected to show the settlements with the two Michigan Banks, but stated on the contrary that the Phoenix Bank had never been repaid a dollar. After the discovery of the facts in relation to the previous payment and settlement of the drafts, the Attorney-General of Michigan, on the 9th of May, 1855, demanded the money of the defendants, which they refused to pay. This action was then commenced in the Supreme Court of this city, and on the trial at Special Term judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs. Subseduently the General Term set the judgment aside, and order ed a new trial. The case was tried before Judge Bosworth a few weeks ago, and on Saturday he rendered Judgment for the plaintiffs. Messrs. Howard and Jernegan for plaintiffs; Messrs. Van Wilde and Cutting for defendants. The following is the opinion in the case Bosworth, C. J.-The decision of the Board of State Auditors of the State of Michigan, made on the 2d day of December, 1854, to the effect that said Phoenix Bank was justly and equitably entitled to the sum of $38, 703 74, for principal and interest upon the claim of the Phoenix Bank against the State of Michigan, for an advance of $16,400, on State bonds, delivered to John Norton, Jr., Cashier of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank (of Detroit, Mich.) by order of Gov. Mason, for the use of said State, March 13, 1838, is contrary to law, equity, and good conscience, and is null and void, as having been procured by the fraudulent practices and concealments stated in the complaint; and the defendants are liable and ought to refund to the plaintiffs the said sum of $35,603 74, with interest from the 4th day of December, 1854, the day when that sum, in pursuance and satisfaction of that decision, was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, which said sum and interest amount, at this date, to $47,954 24. The plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment, accordingly, against the defendants, and for said sum ef $47,954 24, together with the costs of this action. BROWN Durs ex FRIDAY thought