By the Associated Press
Wilmington, Nov. 22—Convicted here today of violating the state banking laws in connection with the failure of the Liberty Savings Bank, Thomas E. Cooper, former president of the institution, tonight faces the alternative of spending eight years on the county roads, or pleading guilty to the remaining charges against him and making restitution for the losses of the bank in the sum of $175,000 before December 31. In addition, he must resign as a member of the New Hanover board of education and agree never to operate or manage a bank in North Carolina, in order to escape the chain gang sentence imposed.
Mr. Cooper was found guilty on four counts by a jury in superior court this morning, and was given the maximum penalty of two years on each count.
Joseph C. Rourk, former cashier of the Liberty Bank, was acquitted.
Appeal to the supreme court was filed by the defense and Judge Graham fixed Mr. Cooper’s bond at $25,000, to be secured by residents of North Carolina.
The bond was arranged tonight and Mr. Cooper was released from custody. In passing sentence upon the defendant, Judge Grady commended the verdict of the jury and declared that Mr. Rourk was merely the tool of his superior officer. He scored Mr. Cooper for his air of insincerity on the witness stand, and declared the defendant’s evidence would tax the credulity of one who undertook to believe it.
As the situation now stands, Mr. Cooper has agreed to a part of the provisions attached to the sentence, but formal pleas of guilty to the remaining charges, which include embezzlement and misapplication of funds have not been entered. Should these pleas be entered, however, before the expiration of the time limit fixed by Judge Grady, the road sentence may be either suspended or stricken from the records.
Mr. Cooper displayed no emotion whatever when the sentence of the court was pronounced. Mr. Rourk, however, thanks the jurors for their verdict and plainly showed the relief he felt at being freed of the charges against him.
Lieutenant Governor W.B. Cooper, who stands jointly indicted with T.E. Cooper in connection with the failure of the Commercial National Bank, was in the courtroom when Judge Grady pronounced sentence.
After staying out all night, the jury considering the case against Cooper and Rourk in the superior court this morning at 8:30 returned a verdict of not guilty as to Joseph C. Rourk and guilty on the four charges upon which trial was had, as to Thomas E. Cooper.
Judge Grady then ordered a recess taken until 2:30 p.m., at which time he would pass upon such questions as were presented. When court was opened C.D. Weeks, attorney for Mr. Cooper, requested the court to give the defendant until the first of January to comply with any agreement that could e made as to restitution.
Considerable discussion resulted from the suggestion of defendant’s counsel that as a part of the agreement they plead guilty to the other indictments amended to constitute misdemeanors only; bills having been found for embezzlement, misapplication and abstraction of funds, which would involve a felony. Solicitor Kellum stated that he would agree to take a nol pros or a verdict of not guilty as to two of the charges if a plea of guilty was entered t either of the felonies, abstraction of misapplication.
W.F. Jones, also representing Mr. Cooper, stated what while it was possibly felt that the verdict reflected the sentiment of the community, that to comply with the solictor’s view would mean a record against Mr. Cooper that would operate in days to come against his children; and that there were some things in mitigation which he felt should be stated. He then referred to the trial of T.E. Cooper in the federal court in connection with the Commercial National Bank, that it was shown in that case, but not in this, that when Mr. Cooper came back from Raleigh both of the banks were in a dilapidated condition and that he was asked to come back and try to build them up; and that I order to comply with the wishes of the comptroller of the currency Mr. Cooper raised $100,000 and removed from the Commercial bank that much objectionable paper, and later raised $33,000 for a similar purpose.
Herbert McClammy stated to the court that he did not believe his honor, if standing in his position defending Mr. Cooper, would ask his client to submit to a felony under the circumstances, referring to his wife and child, and his aged mother.
When the counsel has been heard Judge Grady said: “I have some very clearly defined ideas about these two cases that have been consolidated and tried. Ever since the trial started, at least since we got into the case and I understood something of its nature, I have been wondering what would be the best thing to do in case there was a conviction. Every man that is convicted of a crime brings upon himself and his family both a certain degree of odium that will last him the balance of his life and in this way the innocent always suffer with the guilty.
I haven’t any criticism to make of the verdict of the jury in this case. I don’t see how they could have rendered any other verdict. I think this young man Rourk was nothing in the world but a tool in the hands of Cooper. The correspondence that was offered in evidence here shows that Cooper directed him in most all of the operations while he was in Raleigh although he went upon the stand and swore that he did not, and the kick that cuts the deepest in this case with me is the lack of sincerity of the defendant when he testifies. If he had come in court and admitted that there had been errors in the bank and frankly admitted that he did not have a reserve, frankly admitted that he made loans in excess of the amount allowed by the statute, but that he did it in ignorance, everybody would have been sorry for him, and I for one would have been disposed to do what I could to save him from any undue humiliation, but I feel it my duty to say that a great many of the things he said upon the stand would tax my credulity to the limit if I had to swallow them at their face value. These bank failures have caused untold suffering in this community; hundreds and hundreds of people have lost the savings of their lives. To punish Cooper with a road sentence without restitution would hurt him but it would continue to hurt those who have already suffered. I am a great believer in restitution. I am a great believer in making a thing right when you have made it wrong.”
Judge Grady then read a judgment which he had written sentencing the defendant Thomas E. Cooper to eight years in the common jail of New Hanover County, assigned to work the roads; two years in each of the four charges upon which he was convicted. This judgment carried the provision that he would not be required to commence serving the sentence until January 1, 1925, at which time capias and commitment are to issue. Judge Grady also made entries of appeal for the defendant and fixed his bond at $25,000, “to be justified by residents of North Carolina and approved by the clerk of the court.”
Following the judgment and appeal entries Judge Grady read what he termed “a statement of the court” providing that if by December 30, 1924, the defendant Thomas E. Cooper had made absolute and complete restitution of all moneys owed by the bank, and paid all sums for which the receiver could be sued, and paid all costs of the receivership and the cost of the cases upon which the defendant was indicted, the judgment would be stricken out. Judge Grady stated he thought this would amount to about $165,000.
However, this arrangement was not perfected, as it carried a condition that the defendant would enter a plea of guilty in the cases still pending against him, which plea had not been entered at the adjournment of court. It also provided that Mr. Cooper would resign as a member of the New Hanover County Board of Education and would not again engage in banking business in North Carolina.
Although the court stated that he would suspend judgment on the payment of the costs in the pending cases, attorneys for the defendant did not enter the plea as his attorneys stated that in the event restitution could not be made and he was successful on his appeal his judgment could then be prayed against him, the solicitor specifically stating that he reserved the right to pray judgment on such pleas.
Court, having adjourned, no further action in the matter can be taken and the case now stands on the appeal to the Supreme Court.
From the front page of The Durham Sunday Herald, Nov. 23, 1924
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn84020730/1924-11-23/ed-1/seq-1/
No comments:
Post a Comment