OCR Text |
Show THE OLD TELEGRAPH. Wednesday's Proceedings in this Suit. The moroing of Wednesday was occupied in discussing the motion presented on the 10th ult., by the de-fens", de-fens", for amendments to the original answer. Mr. Critch field argued that it was not an amendment, but simply a cross petition for the purpose of seeking affirmative relief. Mr. Johnson argued that there was i nothing new in the amendment, touching tbe case in point. Mr. Burke read from several authorities au-thorities in support of the motion. The court allowed the motion to be riled, on pay men) of costs incident upon the filing. Mr. Johnson: "Tbe court will please note an exception," In the afternoon it was first decided that the motion to strike out certain parts of the testimony be taken up on Thursday morning. Mr. Bolton's examination by Mr. Burke was then resumed. The witness was questioned at some length in regard to the contract which was the subject of examination at the adjournment of court on Tuesday, i He had heard it read, but could not state positively as to its contents; knew the general purport of it; it referred re-ferred to the stock which was in controversy. He did not remember what the contract of the Kalamazoo parties provided ia regard to the paying out of costs; could not give tbe matter of that contract; had no recollection about it, only that Cowles made it and that it was made two rr three months ago. Alter witness came to Utah, he called on Mr. Holden and acted under powers of attorney 1 for three parties ol Detroit; was ver-! ver-! bally authorized by EelB and Harris. Eels and witness were interested in paying tha expenses of this suit. The question if witness had been writing articles for tbe papers in the interests of this case was adjected to and the objection was sustained. Mr. Bolton had no knowledge of the original contract con-tract being in Sslt Lake city, and had heard nothing of it only what was mentioned Tuesday night; had heard absolutely nothing about it nor where it was. Did you bear that it was taken out of tbe postoffi ce by Mr. Ford and subdued? Never heard anything about it, Mr. Ford was next put upon the stand by thu defense. He was one of the plaintifJs; was a resident of Cleveland Cleve-land lor about twenty-five years; kept house there for twelve years. You testified that you ownd $40,- 000 worth or stock in the N z Percci' company? Had not testified that ill oost him 840,000 in cash. Didn't you in your complaint set tbrth that you were owner of $40,000 worth of Block in the Nz Psrces company and th-it , you paid $40,000 for ii? Didn't pay 1 all of it in cash; only $10,000 of it i n cash. Did you dsv $10,000 in caah? i The notes I gave were the same as cash. He gave two $5,000 notes, due in November, 1874. Were they paid? They were eued. Were thev paid? They were partly satisfied. Were they paid? One of them was paid and the other was taken up by witness by an agreement between him and Winsor, on his renewing S3me notes for them. Did you pay any money on the first $5,000 note? Yes, $2,200, to A. D. Hinman, in Cleveland, about October or November, 1B75. Paid balance of the first note by accommodations accom-modations in renewing notes for Hinman Hin-man and Winsor, ani there was an agreement that if be didn't lift the note it remained optional op-tional with him to do so. Tue second note had been renewed several times; ho bad paid it by encumbering bis property. He paid the real of the $40,-000 $40,-000 with property in Cleveland some of which was mortgaged and some not. Didn't you get $10,000 worth of stoclc by your influence? No, sir. Witness waa appointed to come to Utah to examine tbe mining property, but reoeived no $10,000 of stock as a recompense. Isn't it true that you turned out your property beyond its value? It was worth that in money as it was selling at that time, jit what rate did you buy the Nez Perces steok? Par value. He bought at two diflereot times. Bought the bonds and paid cash; paid twenty-five cents fer $13,980 worth, which was $3,495. The questions, "How did your stock and bonds cost you $40,000 wht-n you bought at 2o cents and 19 ceuti?" and "You turned out to Holden stock amounting to $30,000. and bonds worth $13,930; how do you make out1 that you paid $40,000 for ii?" gavel rise loan explanation by Mr. Critch-field Critch-field reconciling witness' present' statement with tbe averment in the complaint, at the conclusion of which I Mr, Burke told witness that be could now go on as the counsel had explained ex-plained it for bim. - Mr. Johnson excepted to the insinuation insin-uation which counsel on the opposite side had thrown out, to tbe efleat that they were instructing the witness, and appealed to the court for protection protec-tion from tbe unkind and unprofessional unprofes-sional allusion. The court complimented the Salt Lake bar as to the course pursued by counsel for defense in oases argued before him in endeavoring to get at facts aud avoiding personal reflec tions, nam names, etc., anu saiu mat too much ill-feeling and prejudice had been caused by the personalities indulged in-dulged in by counsel on both sides in the case now under hearing, and hoped there would be less of it here-alter. here-alter. Witness then proceeded to state that be did not deliver to Holden nut $30,-000 $30,-000 of the stock; he held back $10,-000 $10,-000 w.rth as collateral for money that should have been paid him. He held it because judgments were held against him for it. He gave two $5,-000 $5,-000 notes which were never paid, and he held the Block, which was left in his hands, in cose the notes were paid. How much stock did you buy in your first purchase? Bought it all one day; bought $,000 for property and $10,000 lor notes. Here followed a somewhat lengthy examination as to whether witness : knew anything of the contract mentioned men-tioned in connection with the previous previ-ous witness. Mr. Ford denied that he had received the contract or a lactase, that he knew ot. con taining it, addressed to Mr. Johnson. He had received Mr. John-son'ft John-son'ft mail while that genlleman was in Ihe west, but did not know that the contract was among it. He had re-ceivrd re-ceivrd a ieucr from Mr, Critchfield, which said, if it said anything, that Mr. C. had mailed a package i Mr. JubiitoD. He delivered Mr. Johnson's mail mailer all to him on his return, but did not kni.w if tbe contract was amongst it. Had had no talk with lither of hie attorneys about the contract con-tract belore Tuesday nigiit. He had , read or heard read the Kalamazoo contract two or three months ago; it was aba ill mining matters; couldn't Hate the exact contents. He was interested in-terested in it to the extent read by counsel on Tuesday. Tiiere was a contract between himself and Cowles, jOl which he had a ooy niuop i-papera, i-papera, tbe purport O! wu'e'i w it t j they should ehare equal y in tLe oaLs i of the suits, op ihtir interests ware J identical. I Witness was a-q-iaintel with Mark Burner, who sbowrd bim some letter? i rme time in ti .attf-r pirl of 1S76 or tbe beginning of 1877. Burner was tsen id Cowles' employment, and the letters were ahown in his office, in which witness nd desk rtvim. Mr. Ford had been in Kalamazoo witb Cowles perhaps a dux-an limes; d.d not thick he had been there Bince be sold out to Holden, only when on bis way t Utah; did not employ Bolton to go there; ner did he engage Burner to go; neither did he ask Bollon to go there for bim. Mr. Burke requested Mr. Johnsen to go upon the witneas stand to testify testi-fy in relation to the cootract, but the latter gentleman declined to go with-out with-out an order of tne court. He bod submitted without thought on Tues day evening and wan sworu and then gaveall the information be was pos seesed of about tbe contract, aud could but now reaffirm what he then stated. Mr. Burke thought he could got bold of that contract, which he considered con-sidered important, by putting Mr. Johnson on lbs stand. Counsel on hie side bad experienced considerable difficulty in trying to obtain it, but had been baiWti. The court thought that, though the contract did not cut any figure in the ease, yet it the parties knew about it it should be produced. Attorneys jshuuld not be put upon the witness sUtid. Mr. Johnston bad stated that be knew nothing concerning it, on his professional honor; that , should suffice. Defendants wished to introduoe testimony of Mr. Cowles, which was objected to on account of its being verified only by a notary public and not according to the statutes of the territory. Pending arguments on the admission of this testimony, court adjourned till Thursday morning at 9 JO o'clock. |