The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-06-18
yEsTERDA 81 PROCEEDINGS IN
THE INTERNATIONAL RE-
OWNERSHIP AT GAL
WESTON.
vyE WITNESS WELLS WHAT HE KNOWS.
Tss Esepsh at which Mr.. Gould HAD h''
Rsnser In abe Pie-Judse Mcoord'
Position.

vastigatigation of the lEternaIlonai
and Great Nor hern railway receiver
abin resumed its investigation at III
.D,cloek this morning, chairman Nc
Kinney presiding.
Mr. Duncan Of counsel for the re
eeiyers asked leave to introduce GER
tain parts of the records on the points
which he believed was essential to the
cause and the matter under investiga-
lion. lie thought 1t proper the com
mittee should DE in possession OF all
Ehe pleadiDgs of the records OF the
court TO arrive at a proper understand
ing Of the litigation. He would not
read the records unless the committee
requested 1t but would simply refer to
the page and date and give the sub
stance If necessary. He supposed
there would be no objection.
Judge Clark objected to breaking
into bis testimony in that way. The
committee at the start had decided
how the evidence was to be intro
dneed. 1t devolved upon them, as
representatives of the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company, the duty of
opening the ease, and he objected to
the introducing Of testimony until
they were through with their side of
the case. then the opposing counsel
could present it il desired. Iester-
oav. he said, It was decided that they
should frat present their case and he
objected to q reversal OF that decision.
The committee could not correct the
testimony IL broken into in the man.
Der proposed and it was no injustiee
TO the other side, because they would
be allowed all the time they wanted to
present their case.
Mr.. Duncan in reply, called the at
tentiou oil the committee to the terms
used by Judge Clark. He had pre-
viously stated that he had no case.
Judge Clark was merely representing
the Farmers Loan and Trust company,
and had submitted the pleadings and
records OF the court, but as part of the
pleadings and records had been
omitted, his side desired to submit the
omitted portions and put them into
the records Judge Clark had said
that he had no testimony.
Judge Clark said: "Oh, yes we
have" He was not prosecuting, and
had no Yaofe testimony than they had,
and submitted that the proper way
was for the committee to be in posses
SIGN Of all the pleadings before going
into the facts Of the case.
The committee held q private con-
sultation and decided to adhere to the
decision Of the previous day and pro-
ceeded with Che oral testimony.
Mr.. II. Al. Whitaker was the first
witness called and testified substanti-
piiy as follows. Had been a lawyer
in TYLER, Sm'th county, for nearly
eighteen years, in connection with
Charles ROnham, under the name of
Whitaker s. Bonham. In 1888 they
(. were the representatives of the Texas
and Pacific galway in that and neigh
boring counties. Afterwards they
withdrew Mr.. Burnett succeeding
them. Ia January 1889 they received
q. telegram from Baker, Bolts q Baker
attorneys for the Missouri Pacific rail
way REQUESTING one of the firm to go to
Henderson Busk county, and repre-
sent that company
On February 4, 1880, suit was plead
in the district court of Smith county
by Jay Gould VS.. the International
and Great Northern in which witness
appeared for the plaintiff. Mr.. Mer.
RAM assistant solicitor of the Mis-
sour Pacific railway was in Tyler at
chat time and had in his possession a
power OF attorney executed by the
hoard of directors of the International
a,, = 't 18th sl,crll r:3:,;;iiway, authore
ling him TO confess Judgment. A RS
olutiou ~''-'~r him that authority
was passed by the board
ol directors between the
attn and 9Th Of the mouth. When
the court was Just adjourning the wit
ness called the attention of the court
To the case which could be settled in a
short time. The court at that time
was nearly empty as the sheriff had
adjourned it.
Mr.. Chiffon, however, was in the
room and objected to confessing judg-
ment. limitations were made at that
TINA that Gould's action was fraudu
cent The power of attorney was never
fled and Judgment was not obtained.
The court adjourned till Friday. He
had heard rumor-'
Mr.. Finley objected to witness say
ing anything about rumors. Rumors
were illigitinate. No tribanal that
had the character OF man at stake
would receive such evidence. Judge
McCord had nothing to do with ru
mors. They were there to meet evi
dence, not rumors.
Judge Alexander said the commits.
j sion had decided that the evidenc,
should be taken in a liberal mamie
without the lechnicalities Of law. H
did no5 understand Judge McCord t.
be affected more particularly than an
other person If he understood tn
case, n0 persons particularly were uu
der Investigation until the commits
sion had decided on the evidence tt
ken.
Mr.. Duncan asked if the commissio
were to consider the the subject ser
Qusly and under the forms of law.
Judge McCord made strong speec
against the IL troduction of rumors.
The comm ssion retired and aftt