844 PEDEBAL BEPOBTEa. �the Commercial National Bank of Saratoga, The tliree easea were heard and considered at the same time by the grand jury. The indictments are voluminous, one containing 30 counts, one 22 counts, and one 17 eounts. They were net prepared by the law officers of the government, Ijut by an attorney who is presumed to represent creditors of the banks. This attorney instituted prooeedings before a eommissioner against two of the defendants, and an examination was,pend- ing, but not concluded, when he was permitted to present the cases to the grand jury. This attorney appeared as a witness before the grand jury with a number of the bank bocks, with varions exhibits, originals, and copies, and read from these Buch selections as he chose. He also read to the grand jury the minutes of testimony taken by the eommissioner, includ- ing the testimony of the defendant Leake, who was examined before the eommissioner, compulsorily, as a witness against the defendant Farrington. His testimony was interspersed with comments upon the force and effect of the teatimony, entries, and exhibits, in the nature of an argument, which was, in the language of the district attorney, "animated, spirited, and excited." Ail the cases were heard and consid- ered together, and the grand jury were told tbat, unies» indictments were then found, the offences would be barred by the statute of limitations. The district attorney advised the jury that the minutes of testimony taken before the eommis- , sioner were not competent evidence, and that the testimony of the defendant Leake was not admissible against himself , because he was protected against it by statute. He was thereupon asked by the jury whether, if improper testimony was used to obtain an indictment, that would preclude the use of competent evidence upon the trial. The indicfments were not read to the jury, or the substance of the various counts explained; but indictments were found as to ail the persons implieated. No officer, stockholder, or employe, or depositor of the First National Bank, was a witness. The president of the Commercial National Bank was a witness, but no other person conneoted with that bank was produced. It is not claimed that he testified to any acts of embezzlement, ����
