Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-07-03
THAT BANTA CASE.
The squabbie over the Estate Re'
sumed Yesterday.

sumed Yesterday.
The term trial calendar being disposed
of, and Juror Arkell having recovered
from his apricots, the Banta will case
was resumed yesterday before Judge
Clark. VIM. Pierce, son-in-law OF the
deceased, and the trustee under the IA
NOUS trust deed, was still under cross
examination by Mrs. Banta's lawyers.
The disclosures were not material nor
interesting, excepting so far as the dis
covery Of the tin box containing Banta's
papers was referred to. Concerning this
transaction, Pierce said in substance:
Banta told him the box contained his
private papers, and he desired witness to
take possession OF them, fearing that
Mrs. Banta would get hold of some OF his
notes and raise money on them. Mrs.
Banta was present when it was dellv-
cred to him, and did not object. Banta
told witness that Mrs. Harrington, whom
he called the "old pauper," did his cook
ing. She was also known as the sol
dier's widow"
The witness acknowledged that he and
Mrs. .Banta were interested equally in
insurance on the life of man named
Hyde, living in Ohio, who was so years
of age. Mr.. White objected to the testi..
mony as improper, because outside OF
the case, and impeaching their own wit
ness, Mrs. Banta. The testimony was
stricken out. Mr.. Banta gave witnesses
little son 81 ,000-all that he had. This
was about week before he died. About
the same time he gave the boy his gold
watch, and Mrs. Pierce his cane. The
gifts were given in the presence of Mr..
Gardner. The money was given in
check. They were for his little name
sake, :'Ikey," and the check was handed
to MIR. Gardner to be saved for "lkey."
In redirect examination witness testi-
fed that Mrs. Bsnta never conveyed the
lot on the corner of Fair Oaks and Mary
streets to him or his wife, though she
promised to do SO. She said it would
make trouble in the family if she made
the conveyance. Witness had never al
luded to Mrs. Banta as b--h. When
Banta read the complaint in the divorce
suit served upon him, he heard him
swear great deal and remark that it
was q id lie.
H. 7. Lee, an attorney-at-law of the
| firm of Lee & Scott, was the next wit
ness. He was the subscribing witness
to will, and identified the signatures Of
Isaac Bants, ]. r. Scott and his own.
The will was signed at the law office of
Lee & Scott, Temple block. Witness
considered Banta at the time Of
sound and dlsposing mind. He was
quite sure that Pierce said nothing when
Isaac Banta signed his will. Banta was
sober.
Witness had an impression that Pierce
was present at the signing of the will.
In conversation with Isaac tine day before
the will was signed, Banta was quite
rational. The general topic was in regard
to the drawing of the papers-the trust
deed and willard Banta expressed his
dissatisfaction at the tardiness in drawing
the papers. Witness explained to him
the importance of proceeding carefully.
Then Banta replied that he wanted them
drawn 30 that they would stick.
J, R. Scott, Mr.. Lees partner, was the
next witness. He went ever the same
ground that Mr.. Lee had been over, but
much more in detail. He thought Banta
perfectly in the possession of all his fac
ulties, and not at all under the influence
of intoxicants. The lawyer was not
aware of any influence exerted by Pierce
in the making or signing of the deed or
will.
Gen. R. II. Chapman was called and
told of the visit OF the teststor, Mr.. Scott,
and Pierce to his office, when the sigma.
lures were acknowledged before him as a
notary. He was sure Banta was both
sane and sober at the time. He would
not have taken the acknowledgment had
he been otherwise.
The testimony for the defense thus
about closes. There will be, of course, a
great deal of testimony introduced by the
plaintiffs in reouttal. This may consume
the remainder of the week. If SO, argu-
ment will not begin before next Monday.