Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-14
ANDERSON'S SUIT.
Horace Thompson Tells His Storyyln Detai
He Never Advised the Partnership bu

ANDERSON'S SUIT.
Horace Thompson Tells His story1n Detail
He Never Advised the Partnership but
Simply Called Attention to the Oppor-
tunity-The Summing Up of Counsel
The Jury Returns n verdics for Defend
ant. I
Yesterday the Anderson Tho mpson or Ander.
son-First National bank case was resumed in
the United States circuit court, Juge Nelson on
the bench. Already for business, II. P. Hall
was called as witness for the defense.
He understood that r. O. Strong's reputa-
ton and standing as business man was good
in 1871. ..
r. o. sTRoNa's EVIDENCE. <.
Next r. o. Strong was called. To summarize
Mr.. Strong's evidence, he denied positively all
alleged in the bill Of complaint, so far as it
related to him, excepting to confess to
his Indebtedness to the bank when
the partnership of Strong & Anderson
was formed in 1871. This indebtedness he ad-
mitted to Anderson at the time, and further
witness emphatically swore that he had never
used one cent of Strong & Anderson's funds
for the payment of private debt, which was
not duly charged to him the books of the
firm.
VIM. Lee was called. He understood Il. o,
Strong's business standing to be good in 1871.
MIR. Horace Thompson was next called to the
witness stand.
HORACE THon1psoN's TESTIMONY.
Horace Thompson was president of the
First National in March, 1871, and he knew r.
o. Strong at that time. He had been in bank
ing business since 1860. Strong was in the car
pet business then. He understood Strong's
standing rs a merchant, in 1871. to be very
good. As q banker he had the opportunity of
knowing the financial standing OF his custo
mers. He was loaning Strong money right
along. In reference to Anderson, witness was
introduced to Anderson, or vice versa. by Z. F.
Drake, who stated Anderson was DESTROYS of
embarking in business it he found suitable
opening. During this or some subsequent con-
versatioH he, witness, had given him, Ander-
son, such information he had
in regard to merchants here. Among
those first recommended by witness,
was G. d. Strong, as Anderson said he wanted
to form a partnership. R. O. Strong having
mentioned that he wanted partner, his name
was mentioned Anderson by witness. Witness
remembered giving his opinion of R. o. Strong
and G. D. Strong as being both reliable, solid
men Of business integrity, as he understood
| them to be. But as to advising Anderson, that
he didn't do, as he never had advised any one
during his, witnesses, business career. At that
| time he believed r. o. Strong was doing an
honest and promising business, but he had
learned from him that he wanted more capital,
as in fact nearly all our business men
did at that time. Witness recol-
lected distinctly Anderson made inquiries
and that he was better pleased with r. o.
Strong business than G. D. Strong. Ander-
son had also congratulated himself at having
gone in with Il. 0. Strong, rather than @. d.
Strong. Witness could not recollect any specific
information he gave Anderson, but had in
formed him in a general way of Strong's bust
ness integrity. He believed it at the time, and
knew nothing to the contrary up to the present
time.
Witness said the First National bank had a
capital of 81 100000 and that he had nothing
to do with the detailed management of the
| books; fifteen or twenty employees did that.
| Witness never received or took account OF de-
posits, etc. Witness then went into s. de-
| scription, in answer to a question, as to how
| deposits were deposited through the windows,
etc. The paying teller would receive check,
| but didn't know what application would be
made of it, and similar condition in refer
| ence to deposits held good. 1t Was Impractical
BILE for one employe to know what the other
| was doing at the time he received deposits, etc.
| Coming to Anderson's discovery Of Strongs
Indebtedness to the bank at the time the part.
| nership was formed, which he claims not to
| have known when the partnership was formed,
witness said Anderson had asked him for
Strongs Indebtedness and he had given him
such a statement. However, the whole occur
| renee was vague in witness mind, and if it
had not been recalled, the interview, by An
derson's testimony, witness would have de-
clared that he had forgotten all about it.
| The statement furnished Anderson, how
ever, was only an approximate one, as the ex-
animation was loosely or hurridly made.
Witness was asked to identify written
statement, wherein Strong's indebtedness was
made out to be $lS,500, while again it was
claimed 1t was only 1913, 500. Witness said it
| was loosely made and the statement was COM
piled from the Zine book" which was only a
memorandum and gave an account Of dis
counts as we'll as rediscounts, and in this way
| the amount had been augmented or Strong's
account might have been incorporated with
Strong q Co. g indebtedness. 1t was after all
only an approximate statement.
| The cline book" was handed Mr. Thompson.
! Mr.. Pierce wanted it remembered that this
cline book' was claimed to have been lost at
| this very time.
Judge Flandrau-Wel take care of that,
notwithstanding your vulgar insinuations.
Witness finally remembered having given the
| memorandum statement and further explained
! that it must have been made from the line
| book.
! CRoss-EXAM1NATIoN.
| Mr.. Pierce, in conducting the cross-examina
ton, referred to Upham's testimony as to the
| line book having been lost and found locked
| up with the City Banks books. When did
this consolidation of the City and First Ma.
| tional banks take place? In answer, witness
said January 18th, 1873. Then if the Zine
book'' was boxed up with the City Banks
books, you couldn't have had it before you fol
| ''the statement furnished Anderson. To
which the witness replied no, but said the
| statement could have been made hurriedly
! from the banks books, and with this Mr.
Thompson concluded his testimony.
MR.. UPHAM RECALLED.
Mr.. Upham was recalled for the defense. His
| testimony was introduced to show that Ander-
son as we'll as Strong had been in the habit of
signing firm checks for payment of private
debts. In one bundle, picked up at random,
| the witness showed where Anderson had pat in
| sixty-one firm checks and Strong thirty-eight.
$500 note of w. L. Anderson's was shown to
have been paid by a check of Strong & Ander-
| sons, which, having been extended, was paid
in October of 1872.
ZIP. BAKER RECALLED.
Mr.. B. B. Baker, being recalled, took up
| Strong Il Anderson's books, and explained
that sums of $175, 1925 and 5000, which the
plaintiff claimed to have shown had never been
charged to Strong. Witness claimed all had
been entered up against Strong, after "a cash
| tioLot,1 boI oil