CO129-535-5 N.I. Brewer- transcript of trial and evidence 1-1-1929 - 31-12-1931 — Page 67

65

4

66

thing like this in Mrs.Brewer's case, but these question is whether there was cash received or not, and there is just a plain answer. Air, Brewer asks you to say that he is right in having mede this statement, that cash was re-

ceived for the amount. He tells you that an accountant with those books in front of him could not state the record in any other way.

He has explained that the position of the Bank was that they were about to engage a competent manager and until that manager' was engaged, they did not want a large capital, and for this reason, this scheme was adopted. He asks you to say that this was not a mere scheme to hood- wink the public, but it was some ching which the shareholders and Directors wanted to do for the advantage of the dank.

well ventlemen, you will consider these

metters with great care in considering your verdict.

he tells you, and he has a right to tell you, that this statement is a true one because the books of the Compeny have been kept accurately and consistently and that any accountant can produce the same figure from the books of the ank as they o tand. ne says truly, that he himself gave this information last summer in his Public Examination

well ventlemen, you will take these facts fully into account when you are deciding for the Crow or for the defendant. At the same time ventlemen, it is quite possibie, having regard to these transaction, you may think that whatever the form of the transactions were, the real object of the proceedings or the “ank was to create the illusion that the banks was financially of good standing,

In the history of the Bank, you will notice that with a smell actual cash capital, they bought premises valued at $240,000.00 on which there was a mortgage and they paid $90,000.00 in respect of this building, and established themselves as a bank of first-class importance

in Des Voeux Road. Now Gentlemen, if you think it was part of the staks oleme of the Bank's principals to have control of a large building and this step was taken in accordance with that, and that ar. Drewer knew, I think in what ouse you will be justified in finding the crown right.

The fact is, Gentlemen, that very little money actually came into the Dunk from the outside in con- nection with the shares at all, and that being so, you will probably think this statement misleading. it is not a legal question. he men who mad the statement speaks tlle uume language as you. The question is what do you understand from it. I suggested to mr. Drewer it was not a genuine cash transaction at all and in his speech today, he has sugested that the matter might have been put through without making the matter a cash transaction, and the result to the shareholders of the bank would have been exactly the same. That result is what the crown impresses upon you, that the presence of cash is merely a trap to mislead.

If you want a parallel of what has happened, or seems to have happened, there is the case where two man A and ø, were both in neeây circumstances and wanted money, so A wrote a cheque for $100 and gave it to B. B wrote a cheque for £100 and gave it to A. Then one of them sold this cheque to a friend who new they were in needy circumstances, sold the cheque for £5. The drawer of the cheque went bankrupt. The holder of the cheque came in and prove d that the cheque was for £100. and the Court