Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1893-12-15
Mr.. Gage II Called to the Stand
In the Suit of Gage vs..
Fisher.
Says He Did Not Advise Nr. Fisher
to Let the Shaw Stock Get
Away.
I. p. Baker Called and Tells Hi
Connections With Deals Con-
corning the Bank.

corning the Bank.
District Court.
From Thursdays Dsily.l
After the went to press yes
terday, the jury came in IN the Anderson
Baker case, and returned q verdict OF
not guilty.
The taking of testimony before the court
was resumed in the case of Coleman vs..
Bottomley. Mr.. Philbrick ross ex.
am!ned Nj. Coleman at some length, his
evident purpose being to show that at
the time he decided his land to Bottomley,
and prior thereto, his mind was tolerably
clear, and he was not in that feeble men
tai condition alleged by the plaintiff.
This morning the case was resumed,
and several witnesses were called by Mr..
Newton to prove the shattered mental
and physical condition of the plaintiff
prior to and at the time that he signed
the deed.
On the plaintiff having rested his case,
Mr.. Philbrick moved that the complaint
be dismissed on the following grounds:
~ That the complaint does not allege
that Mr.. Bottomley procured or induced
OF caused the plaintiff to drink liquor
with the intent to deceive and defraud
him as alleged: (2) that it is not alleged
in the complaint that when Coleman
signed the deed Bottomley knew he was
drunk; (3) that the testimony shows that
Coleman received valuable consldera-
ton for the land, and the complaint does
not set up that the plaintiff resclnded
according to law; ~ on the ground that
the testimony does not show that when
Coleman actually signed the deed he was
deprived of his reasonable understand
ing, and that he had not sufficient men
tai capacity to dispose of his property
with an intelligent understanding of
what he was doing, and that he wa in a
condition 70 that he could not exercise
intelligent and deliberate judgment.
The motion was denied, the judge say
ing that he desired to hear from wit
nesses the condition of the plaintiff at
the time he signed the deed.
Mr.. Bottomley. MI. Skeels and MI. Regi-
ster we're called for the defense. Their
testimony was directed to showing that
the plaintiff was in a sound enough
mental condition at the time he signed
the deed.
The case was closed and the parties
we're given to December Goth to submst
findings.
Court adjourned to-day until Monday,
when cases will be tried in the following
order: IS, 50, SO, %, 40 and a. These
cases are all that are left on tile calen-
dar. They are entitled in the order
named: Gage Va. Fisher; Kupitz vs.
Murphy; Mclean VS.. Harmon; Beal va.
Fields; Griffin vs.. County Of Burleigh;
OConnor Va. Lenihan.
From Mondays Daily.]
This morning the district court re-
sumed business, and proceeded to try the
case Of James R. Gage We. Asa Fisher.
In this case Messrs. Newton and Glas-
pell appeared for the plaintiff, and
Messrs. Hughes and Register for the de-
PENDANT.
The complaint and answer we're read.
The complaint set forth that the defend
ant gave the plaintiff a note for $4,000
which has not been paid with the excep,
ton Of $1,000. The answer sets forth
that the note was secured by fraud and
undue influence. 1t went On to say that
prior to the last election OF directors
of the First National bank, the plaintiff
and defendant conferred together in a
confidential and friendly way, as to how
the management Of the bank could be
wrested from the Fairchild management.
At that time MI. Fisher owned 489 shares
Of the bank stock, and controlled elk
teen additional shares. The plaintiff
suggested that the defendant should re-.
linqulsh the control Of the sixteen shares
and permit the Fairchild interest to buy
them, as they seemed to be very DESTROYS
Of doing go. Then the defendant could
buy two shares that belonged to one
Williams, making the defendant the
owner of 491 shares. The plaintiff
would then vote bis ten shares with the
defendant, making q total of sol shares,