The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-07-08

by The treasurer of The seapoar and Roanoke Rail
and presume would have heard of IL from Mr.
Page attorney In fact for-Brodnax, II they had no
Fmry-ninth Question: Did you or not, by your
self. or by some ohes persop, on or about tbs
month Of July, S73, communicate with NJ poge
or some OIL er of your counsel, TO begin this salt?
Answer: ] do not recollect Imay have written OF
spoken TO Mr.. Daniel or Major Page as to Why the
sui mad NOT hen Instituted, or when II would Be.
or attorney did you manage and attend to the in.
terest bought from the plaintiffs by your seaboard
and Roanoke Railroad Company, set forth In the
Question objected 70 by Sir. Page, for plaintiffs,
on the ground that II IS lending question. There
else to show that the plaintiffs sold their stock to the
Seaboa and eoanoke Railroad Company.J
Answer: Whatever Interest may have In the
by Mr. Daniel, counsel for. the. seaboard and aoa-
hoke railroad. What further lie may have done in
spoken To- Mr EDue I Of the matter incdenlaIIy'
Fifty.frst Question: What was your object and
purpose OF binding the plaintiffs by contract to
of their siOcsln The Petersburg ltailroad Company
10 X RaGland or any Of his associates or fiieuds?
Answer: Because | unders God tlat In former
suit, or former suits, brought by other stockholders
OF the Petersburg RAILROAD Company TO the same
or Tor similar purpose rs this one was intended
to be brought. aud was brought by the BrodnsxeS
the suit or suits were brought to an end by the Pc
tersburg Railroad Company, or by Mr. Ragland or
his associates purchasing their stock In order to end
the suit; and as the seaboard and Roanoke kali
road Company had been much injured and sub
tected to much expense and trouble by their man.
agement, as well as that Of the Richmond, Frede-
ricksburg and Potomac Railroad Company being
subjected 10 investigation, and charges made upon
them before Legislative committees; and as IL WAS
believed 10 be very possibly that they might he
again subjected to similar expense and injury by
the endeIror, believed, uf The Defendants In
this suit TO prosecute nattr of Individual specu
latlon; and as Ii believed 10 be 10 the very great
tatcrest of one. or may he OF BOTH of these COM
panfss that full investigation should be had into
the managemento OF the Petersburg kairoad Com
pany, which could not be made II the MeSSrs BrOd-
10 save expense of suit and the uncertainty at
tending rhe future value of their stock. should be
induced for prise to sell their stock 10 Mr. Rag
Fifty second Question: Did you, in making said
contract seek to promote The interests OF the Pc
tersburg Railroad Company, or the Interests OF The
two other railroad companies named By you, and Of
which you IRE president?
answer: l did not seek either to njure or pro-
mote the interests fthe Petersburg Railroad COM
pany. ] desired only that whatever facts may have
existed, existed with regard TO the management
OF the Petersburg Railroad Company should be
asccrtaned, that its management might be con.
traSted with that of those companies WHICH the Pc
tersburg Railroad Company or.its managers had
assaileu before committees of the Virginia Legi:la-
ture.
Flitr-third Question: Having, under the contract
produced, certainly some interest in the subject
Inatter or this suit, whY did You not,insruct your
counsel 10 make the SeabDard and Roanoke Rail-
road Company, and Mr. T.. " Daniel, Jr., the trus-
tee parties TO this suit?
Answer | do NOT understand the techncalitieS
involved Iii this question. IL was not the intention,
that am aware of, TO keep secret any Interest of
the SeahOard and Roanoke railroad In the matter.
On the contrary, understood that 1t was perfectly
legitimate matter, ana that No secret would be made
OF IL In any way. ,
ling to have had your com cciion with the RrodnaN
stock made public while the Senate committee.
last winter, were considering the controversy then
pending between the Petersburg Railroad company
and the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Railroad Company
TQuQstion objected to by Mr.. Page as leading, and
on the ground That there is not here the slightest
evidence to show that the witness had any connt c.
ton with the Brodnax stock ut the time referred
Answer: TO the best of my recollection had no
connection with the matter until afterwards l I'M
dcrstood mat Major Page inie"Ced 10 appear before
The Senate committee In the interest OF his clients,
but as 10 The time when the matter was first brought
to my attention l clnnUt recollect, and therefore
standpoint. do not ut This moment think would
have been prejudiced before The committee II Ii had
been.
Outstanding or agreement, express or implied, be-
tween you and the plaintiffs, or your agents, or
their agents. in relation 10 the BrodnaX stock at the
time above meltioned-that Is, during The pending
of the controversy rcftrrcu 10 before the Senate OF
Virginia last winter? Ii so, what was that under.
in words simply, or In writing?
Answer: L really cannot rccolect. There GER
tainly was no agreement in writing except the
agreements that have been produced.
F,fty-sixih Question Were you or not, In the
month OF July last, cognzant OF the fact that second
mortgage bonds of the Peter sbnrg kailroad Com,
being offered for sale In the city OF philadelphia
and did you not so inform Mr.. John r Branch Ina
conversation with him ao0ut that time, on the cars
between New York and Philadelphia?
Answer: do not recollect when learned that
the second mortgage bond, of the Petersburg Kali
road Company were being offered in Baltimore, Dut
4 rhink
In The papers. My recollection is that Mr. Branch
inform,d Inc that he had cndeavoreu 10 negotiate OF
bad Negotiated them In Philadelphia. pa1d very
lii tie attention TO the matter.
Fitty-sevcuth Question: The contract between
the plaintiffs by Mr.. L. K. Page, attorney In fact,
aud the sc,board and Roanoke Railroad Company
ny yourself president. produced by you, asserts
that you were "duly authorized thereto by the
proper authorities OF said company" Is SAID as
serliou correct?
Answer: have before replied to this question or
similar one, that the agreement Speaks Tor itself,
and my right to make the agreement Will be only
replied to before any question that might be raised
before i proper tribunal.
fIfty-eighth Question: Was there any meeting Of
the Board of Dire tors of the Seaboard and Kotn-
oke Railroad Company between the lst OF J4n'la-
ry and 9th Ma. CHI, 1873?
answer: Nv recollection Is that there was not.
Fifty-ninth Question: Read the article In the
DUTY Snte JOurndi, Richmond, Va, dated july
26ti, 1873 being second article In second column,
first page, aud headed Very Important Railroad
Case, and state who prepared or wrote said arti-
Gle; b. whom and ut whose expense WAS said arsi-
Gle published!
Answer: do not know.
And further this deponent saith not now, with
lcayr for Mr. Page 10 cros>-eXt!uinc the Witness If
he chooses to do so hereafter.
JOIN NJ. ROBINSON.
No other witness appearing, the further taking
of these dep)sitons Is continued from day to day.
HENRY HI!USaLL,
Commissioner In Chancrry.
Copy.-Tc,te: HENRY HUDSALL,
Commissioner ia Cnauccry.
Coptrocf Referred to in Twenty-sixth An.
swer.