Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1893-12-15

stock was made by him to Mr.. Fisher
on the 10Th Of December, 1892. Mr.
Fisher seemed placid in his mind. There
were no indications of anger such as Mr..
Fisher had described in his testimony.
Mr.. Gage testified differently from Mr.,
Fisher in the matter of the defendant
having offered the plaintiff 80 cents on
the dollar for the ten shares. Mr.. Fisher
testified that he never made any such
offer to MIR. Gage. MI. Gage contra.
dicted this. Mr.. Fisher had also test.
fed that he did not tell Mr.. Gage that
the Shaw stock could be bought for 90
cents on the dollar; Mr.. Gage claimed
that Mr.. Fisher did make such a state.
ment to him. This was on the 18th Of
December, 1892, or ACKNOWLEDGMENT
have been a few days after that. Mr,
Gage had told Mr.. Fisher all the time
that as against the Fairchild people he.
(Fisher) should have the preference. It.
was Oh the 18th of December that Mr..
Fisher tried the second time to buy the
Gage stock. At that time the witness
advised MI. Fisher not to let the Shaw
stock go. He told Mr.. Fisher that the
moral effect on the community would be
better if he had a large majority. Mr..
Fisher replied to this statement that he
could beat the other fellows if he had
only $50 shares, as there was SO much
stock that could not be reached: some
owned by army officers that was put up
as collateral Tor loans, and it was the
matter OF the utmost difficulty to get at it.
In cross examination, Mr.. Gage said
That he bought his ten shares of stock in
1884, OF the Fairchild interest; that he
bought ten shares 80 that he might be
admitted to the directorate of the bank;
that he was 80 admitted; he paid $3.50
for it, and it had never paid any dividend.
The cross examination proceeded, and
then Mr.. Hughes asked the question as
to whether or not he owned any bank
stock on the 10th of January-the date
that he was made director OF the bank.
This question was strenuously objected
to by the counsel for the plaintiff as in
competent, i~rrevelent and immaterial.
Mr.. Hughes said he introduced it for the
sole purpose o. ~impeaching the witness.
he would show, If permitted to do so,
that the plaintiff subscribed to an oath
on the 10th of January, 1893, to the ef-
fect that he was owner Of ten shares Of
stock in the bank, when as a matter of
fact he did not own a share. The court
decided to admit the testimony for that
purpose. A copy of an affidavit made
by Mr.. Gage, qualifying him as a direct
or, the original OF which was sent to the
controller Of the currency, was intro
duced in evidence over MI. Glaspell's
objection. Mr.. Glasspell claimed that
the pretended affidavit was no affidavit.
as it was only made before a notary
public, aud under the laws of the United
States, a notary public is not an Official
empowered to administer oaths to a
United States official, and this is what
q national bank director is.
Capt. l. P. Baker was then called for
the plaintiff. He proceeded to detail
the steps he had taken during the latter
part OF last year, to secure control of the
First National bank, the facts to which
be testified being about the same as had
been testified to by other witnesses.
Before the captains testimony was con-
cluded the court adjourned for dinner.
In the afternoon, the examination OF
witnesses 10 the case was concluded and
Judge Winchester rendered a verdict
for the defendant, which is, in effect.
that Mr.. Fisher will receive back the
$1,000 paid Mr.. Gage, and his ovedue,
unpaid note for $1,000, and Mr.. Gage
will receive back his ten shares of stock.
A stay of sixty days thas been granted,
and an appeal will probably be taken.