, 1873-10-21


foretl loss of $4,000; TINT Bnid Doxtor teHti-
l!os that, by tho Testimony OF Aaron Rule Will
ian Dooloy, Elijah Kolly, uonry L. Jauowny, John
Il. Voor'leos, nud others. aud which Dostor
property Of which plafl,iir clasto 10 tho owner,
and valued at B0me 46, 900, WAS roally not worth
oyor Sl6,000 and TINT thoro waa tho satno ratio
of oyor-valnatton on the ottire cousonts of
tho factory. or tllogn allegations complain.
ent in liza affidavit maleH mn unqualified
denial. Tho moro Interesting part Of his n
titlhvit iB whore lo charges TINT nftor tho toBtt-
1nony Of said l1tlle and Tox Ind beo1 taken by
pnny, and placed OH flo, complainant proceeded
to tnko the croBa-oxamination OF Baid witness
that during tho croes-oxanllnation OF Baid
Aaron 1su1o before tho Commissioner, certain
own handwriting, Tho exiHtonco Of ~hiol, he had
deuied mud which was ali estimate OF tho value
Of certain property destroyed by tho tlrein plain
ta factory wc ostmate Man WIS styen to judge
was somo 20 per cent higher tlan the value fxed
by plaintiff III his proofs Of los to tho insurance
conpanic.; that whom said paper waB shown to
witness tho evi'oneo Of perjury was. 60 con.
aftet It l,ad hcon put on ovilenco. Rulo having
Bworn Int lie never naatlo any estimate at all aud
did not know tho yaluo Of any Of p1aintifY's
n,aclltnory; that, falling to destroy tho
fxcn'G Gi1'n ooaa Of ts n9rS n2 sns a;.,H e. X
evidence, from The table in tho Commissioners
room, slipped Il into lis pocket, and left tho
room that Plaintiff. sceint. him do this, in-
liatoly after search, followed md overlook
him, md donaanded said paror, which has boon
put in possession; TINT naia Boyle denied pos
aoastor,, but finally, upon tho fact being maao
known TO him that ho hud boon detected, hc do
WAS restored to record. Plaintiff algo stntos Tint
Writ Dexter was granted leave Honlo few days
before tho coming on Of tho trial Of
tho caso In the, United States circuit
Court to restore the direct examination Of Rnid
witnesses by filing certified copies Of Tho aano
in his possession that sa!d Dexter urged tho
said cause then and thcro to trial in tho nbaonce
OF the croBB-oxamlnn[ion Of said WitneBsos. which
were destroyed by fire, aud Of tho robuttinng tes-
timony on behalf Of complainant; TINT upon
complainunt's application q continuance was
granted and permission given to reBtoro tho
record by furnishing said GROSS and robutting
testimony, whcronpon complainant applied to
possession Of tho original atonographio notes Of
said testimony, to produce copies Of tho sano
for this Opponent that whslo in tho act
Of reproducing aaid testimony, said Bteno-
grapher was waited upon by ono William holliy,
prevent the delivery Of said. testimony to
complainant, knowing full woll the danger
tho samo would iualot on tho oaso
Of aotendant and Tho ggoBitI.yo .,. proof1
copiea Of the notes Of tostlmony Of tho cross
and rcbutting examination wero finally procured
md placed III tho hands Of q Commissioner, to bo
read oyor to and signed by tho several Witnesses;
that aaid Roilly did use means to prevent tue
attendance OF some Of tho most importantly .bwit.
ncssos whose Testimony was damaging to his
chonts, in order that their signatures could not
be obtained, nor their testimony read over to
tlom aud sworn to.
With regard to tho alleged aocument-stoaling,
complainant slya tint he gathered from q caro-
ful reading of said Doxter'B affidavit, that ho
socks to hayo the Inference drawn that the fact
thnt complainant called upon him ut his olico
shows that complainant knew or Waa In gonlo
way connected with tho loss Or suppression Of
tho dopositions referred to In Nlr. Doxtor's nt1a
yit, Complainant states that Oh Or about the 1lth
day Of june 1es!, ho geGertainodtha thaox parto
topostiona Of defendant wern mtsa!ng apl, at
statcs Attorney, lo proceeded to Doxtor's office,
aud in quiet Way reported to him that said de-
positions could not bo found, md asked him IL
ho kuew anything concerning thom whoroupon
Dexter asked complainant whom lle had first dis
! covered they wero missing to which complain.
! mt replied that tho dny previous was the first
intimntiou lo Ind recoiyoa of the fact that aaid
Dexter theroupon burst into rage and replied.
"You hayo robbed tho records. I will
put you behind bars, whore You belong;"' to
which charges complainant mado no material re-
| ply; TINT said Doxtor, finding that those gross
chRrgeB had no effect upon tho bearing OF tho
complainant. sezed him By tho th1oat and forced
him in o violent nlanner aPainst tho bookcase In
Lin Office and handled linn In an outrageous
mannor, that complainant having 10 Witness in
his interest present, made no uso Of any 1ncanH
IN bin power to put m end to such nh outrageous
ti,us sa,a Doxtor in hu affidavit, nfter stating
TINT complainant ontored into some general con.
soraation with regard to the causo, saying
ans had met with so,no trouble about
dispositions In. the office Of tho Clerk
of the Court, aud was Of The opinion TINT mat-
ters Ill tho Office wero somewhat confused, snya
that without further sonversaI5on = !! 81 import
Complainant respectfully submits to the Court
whether tho language employed by said Doxtor
during tho interview mud tho manner com.
plainant was troatcd should bo considered as 'ot
| Importance"
Complainant closes his Affidavit with atato-
ment TINT neither hiu1solf, or any one Tor him,
| nor IN his bohalf, cyer removed said deposition
from the ileB, nor has ho tho slightest knowl.
edge Of their absence or loss except auch opin-
| tie facts before stated; that complainant ho.
lieyes tue lapoaitlonB wero abatraoted frora the
tlos in tho Interest OF said defendant, and by
somo Of its employees. pgonta, servants, or a5-
iof il lpscd. Tho grounds aro ln briof, that the
dofontant and itB attorneys .wsro we'll aware Of
the fact that the nature Of the cx parto oxnanii'
tiou Of said wituvhsog. lsnlo and Fox. aud 9th
! GlB, M0ulu hl0W IH1tf I2stluuly W w 4alau ~
nearly every particular, aud led to tho roadug
Of tho cross,szam,uation Of said .wttnpsses, mud
thus disclose. not only tho porjlry Of which
ssid Huio aud and nos i!aa poen e,o,v guilty .ssl
naid dsfendant, by solno ,of its agents
employees, y attorneys, hrJ betn guilty Of bnb.
orniug said Witnesses nn s9rrnptly inducing ne @ n
examination. Complainant ngroes with suid
po1ter i'll his conclusion that "said daposltionf
},Gve been stolen from t4u rtcordB of thc GQpr
by some ons interested III Mthoireuppression," Ius
cfain1B that 1t WAS clearly for do5endant'H inter
cHt to suppress tho de1oaitlons Of Rule and Fox
tor tAe ruasons before slated. and fGF otno1
reuaons, Complainant goes on to explain tlt
other rGasoLs il, full, The affidavit Of com
pla,nant IL supported t'y ai1id9yita Of Joseph o
Glover and Bird Dieltford, sttoyney3 {n the caho
and also OF Henry Dfc!zlald. tho etuhv3rGpl1er.
ANswEn OF gNa. AuEI1N.
A waok hsc We exposed Paync Eitt%'a' opera
tions iii nttdmptips to procure q fraudulent d.
yorco for hlophor ]. Aliatin, against his wife
| -,n1, At}uif tnf1 1,o1