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

n Sop!-tS',e - S
/ 49, GoMHIss loEEn,s OFFICE.
November 27th, 1673-12 o'clock 81. }
Present: L. Il. PAGE, Esq, counsel for plaintiffs
JOHN LYON, Esa., counsel Tor defendants
WM.GREEE. ESQ. ,counselfor defendants
JOnH NJ. ROBINSON, So, witness;
REUBEN RAGLAND, ESQ.,, one Of the de-
fendints.
Deposition Of John II. Robinson continued.
Twenty-sixth Question, by John Lyon, Esq. for
duplicate Of the cont na dated 9th arcl s7s,
entered into between, the Seaboard aud Roanoke
railroad Company and the plaintiffs by l.. u. Page,
attorney In fact, referred TO In the questions and
| answers at last examination?
Answer: have, and here teDder It to Messrs.
Inspection and comparison with the copy produced
oy Mr.. Page ut the last me eting here, and to lie
part Of this deposition. i desire to preserve ihe
original In the archives Of the company.
Twenty seventh Question by Same: In whose
Answer: n the handwriting OF one of my clerks
Mr; Duke, sho,, Is a clerk In the office OF
the Richmond, Frederieksburg and = Potomac
| do not remember his christian name at this
moment, but he Is Il clerk In the otIica :ef the
parties to the contract are IN the handwriting of
Major Page, "a their attorney, for brodnaxes and
wilkins, and for the company In my handwriting
| In both duplicates.
Twenty eighlh Question by Same: You have
stated that the duplicate contract presented by Nj
| writing Of Emmett Brown, Of BALTIMORE indeed.
wholly, except the parts specified in your own
from which MIR. Brown made his copyG
| Answer: To the best OF my recollection Mr.
Brown made his copy from the one have just pre-
| Scnted.
| Iwcrty-ninih Question by Same Why did not
| Mr.. Brown follow he original wholly! Why was
1t necessary TO insert into Mr Browns copy cerialn
! important words in your own handwriting! Are
| you not mistaken?
Answer replied that to the best best Of my recG Leo
just presented If so, the words referred TO rs being
in my handwriting w re probably omitted. 1t Is
| Very possibly Dir. Browns copy was made from
| draft of The agreement. ana may have been made
fst and the words in my handwriting filled In, and
| the whole afterwards copied by MIR Duke.
| Thirieth Question oy Same: Has the original
draft from which copies, were made, whether by
| Mr.. Brown or MIR. Duke, been preserved? Can on
produce that original draft?
Answer think not. 1t could he Of no use, and
| my impression Is that 1t was destroyed.
| 'rhirty-ir,t Question hy same: In whose hand
Writing was the original draft" destroyed, as was
| Stated In your last answer?
| Answer: 90 not rec0llcct.
| Thirty-secouu Question by Same: Where did you
| find the paper produced by you to-day:
| Answer: The treasurer of the Seaboard and Roa-
noke Railroad Company, j L. Hill, forwarded It 10
Inc In obedience to letter addressed to him to d0
| so. The letter was written from Richmond. and
| the paper WAS forwarded from Portsmouth to me
| At Baltimore.
| Thirty-lhird Question by Same Ator about what
| or after the 9th Of March, 1878?
| Answer: DO not rccOllect.
| Thirty-fourth Question by Same: AT or about
| what time WAS Mr.. Dukes copy made?
| Answer: do not recOect.
| Tnlrty-Glth Question by Same: Can YOU state
| whether the said copies, In the handwriting OF
Brown and of Duke respectively. were or were not
made before the 27th day Of March, 1S73-thc day
| Of the date of the contract?
Answer: cannot state positively. My impress
sion is that OF them was made on or before that
| date.
| impression ana your belief as TO the other OF
| them?
Answer: My impression Is that the other was
| made a few days after, but am not certain.
| Thirty Question hy Same: The signatures
10 the contract this day produced by you in Dukes
handwriting appear to have been "rtten with inc
Mr. Page present toselherat the time OF said sign
Ing?
| PAGE and myself were together at the signing of
one of these papers.
Thlrty-egh!h Question by Same: Were or were
| the time of signing The particular paper produced
by you this day, and now exhibited to lou?,
| Answer: 1t IS very difficult TO recall with accll-
racy what l have long since dismissed from my
mind, TO the particulars in regard 70 the manner
aG t and S sd t aid whist from the @
of tue signatures 1t would lead me to the conclu-
sion that his paper was signed by Major Page anu
recollection sufficiently TO assert or deny IL as Il
! fact.
III II the conf act produced by You to-day writ
ten IN Richmond by MIR. Duke, clerk In the en-
poy of the richmond Fredericksburg and Poo
seal of The SclbOlrd and Roanoke Railroad Com
pany is kept: Whether the impression OF The seal
nscr by yGa on by We OF
answer: The seal OF the Seaboard and Roanoke
Railroad Company is kept al Portsmouth. My Inn
preston Is That the seal placed on the paper by
| iDc treasurer of the company at Portsmouth.
EYrtie,n %esion by Ie VII ySa prSa@e9
tcrrcd TO in your answer to thirtysecoui question
| Answer j have kept no copy. II was simply i
| request fer him 10 send me the paper.
Furty-iirst Question by same: When was the seal
| Of the >eabOaId AMI Roanoke Railroad Company
affixed to the paper produced by you to-day by Tie
treasurer OF said company before or since the last
| Il. journment Of thes. dispositions this day week
| answer: To the best of my knowledge and be-
lief The seals were affixed to both paperS al about
| the same tlmc-wlien The agreements were pre-
pared.
the one produced 10y Mr. Page and the one pro-
duced by you. slSned by You aud MIR. Page ST.
| multaneousIy. and sealed also simultaneously?
| Answer: refer to my reply toqucsliUn No. 70.
An that say on this sHIjcct Is thar II was the
Intention of both parties to have prepared signed
been produced, and that this was done at or rs near
tu the dale Of the agreements as was mutually con-
| rcnignt. The Scaboard and Roanoke Railroad
Company preserved one and The other was delivered
10 Major Page.
Fort, Third Question by Same: When was the
agreement between you and Mr.. Page, set forth and
] substantially embodied In The contracts produced:
first actually aud originally made between you and
/ Mr.. Page, verbally or otlerwlSc:
| Answer: do moi recoect. ! had very little con-
/ yersaron with AIR. Page upon The SUBJECT; under
slood that 1t was proposed ny MI. rage 10 Mr Dan
ect, stating to Inc that Mr.. Page Was employed by
cssrs. BrudnsX TO bring the suit or otherwise. or
90 for them he might deem best TO protect their
| Interests. - .
the transaction With Mr.. Page, referred 10 In your
last answer, before or after, or about the time OF
the production before the senate Committee vi
/ the Brodnax petition lat winter!
Answer: 1t was considerable time after the petit
lion ref FRED 10 was Introduced; co not recollect
how long. The entire matter was arranged between
MIR. Daniel and Mr. Page. know but little aboutit.
Forty-hfth Question by Same: Did you or not
Offer TO employ Mr. Page as counsel with Messrs
Daniel, trump. and Ould in the controversy then
peudil before the Senate of virginia?
| Answer | do not recollect Offering 10 employ
him: some conversation may have taken place be-
tween us incidental ~ the petition before The Legis-
lature, but l think l DO recollect that Mr. Rage
evinced decided determination not 10 engage III
the matter at all as my counsel, and If the subject
was ever mentioned to him rs to his being employed
by me, the idea If ever entertained by me, WAS dis
Forty-sixth Question by Same: Who paid for the
printing in the Richmond Wing and other news
papers of Mr. l.. X. Pages speech before the Senate
Committee?
Answer: 1t was included In The amount paid for
ericksburg aud Potomac Railroad Company
deeraug 1t to the interest OF the company that II
should be published.
tons is continued til to .mor,ow evening, at
O'Clock, at the same PLACE; H. HHPSALL,
Copy-teste Fl. HuDSALL, commissioner.
COMMISSIONERS OFFIcE,l
Il November 20, 1878.
Present: L. r. PAGE. Esq., for plaintiffs;
9oiiS LYON ION E ssa for defendants;
Il JOHN ROBINSON, Esq, witness;
REUBEN kAGLASD' Esq, one OF The
defendants