The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-12-15

"Was that done when they were
bought one day and sold soon after?n
When was there such case?"
Mr.. Gage then pointed out some
Milwaukee, Chicago and ST. Paul stock
bought September %, 'S5, and sold
November 25, and Mr.. Oxnard in reply
said:
That advanced so rapidly that I sold
1T. 1t was bought here and sold here.
Another stock which was sold out very
quickly was sold on account of strike
on the road.'
Where were the funds kept?n
I'm Casco bank
Who signed the checks?" II
Both Of us"
when did Mr.. Cram 20 to New York?n
II SHOULD say ten years ago."
What is his business there?"
he is president of notwithstanding
company"
What are his financial circumstances"
. do not know
DO YOU not remember telling Mr..
Alfred Warren that Mr.. Cram was in fall
ing circumstances"
:" l never did"
"Do you not remember telling Mr..
Alfred Warren that you had trouble with
q draft of Mr.. Crams?"
Il had check, but T never had any
fears about it. l believe that he asked
me to hold the check for a few days"
did you not tell Mr., Alfred Warren
that he would better collect a small claim
OF his against Mr. Cram as he was in fail
ing circumstances"
You must make distinction between
Mr.. Cram and the company of which he
was president"
What company was that?"
The Fowler Manufacturing company"
It was failing?"
:" Lit was EN- h3rra SSe0 y
In the afternoon Judge Symonds, coun-
sci Tor the trustees, began examining
Nh. Oxnard, his leading purpose being to
develop
the Motive Behind the Effort
to break the trust. Mr.. Oxnard testified
that when the executors of the will held
the estate they had note of $51, 600 with
enough accrued interest to bring the
whole sum to $4,000 against William
Warren and Alfred D. Warren, who were
doing thread business in copartnership
There was also in the bank at Worcester
a note Of SIS, 600 given by the copartner-
ship and guaranteed by George Warren
the testator. The executors took this
note up, and finally in court the claims
OF the estate against the copartnership
were compromised by the payment Of
$4,000.
MIR. Oxnard testified that at various
times the trustees had loaned to William
Warren and Alfred d. Warren various
sums, generally secured by assignment of
income. About 1881 William Warren had
$4,000 In this way and expressed dissatis-
faction at the application of his income
to the payment of This loan. Since that
date the trustees have declined to grant
his applications for loans. About six
months before the petition was filed in
the present case, the trustees refused to
him request for a loan of S8000. Mr..
Oxnard further testified that both
William and Alfred D. Warren had ex-
pressed desire for a division of the
estate. They began to desire such a
DIVISION many years ago, having objected
to the probate Of the will.
Here interviewed some controversy by
counsel as to whether all the heirs had
at various times desired division. Some
letters were read by Judge Symonds
showing that William Warren, of West
field and his son were deeply affronted at
Trustee Grants refusal to consent to a
loan to them; and that they determined
to have him (Mr. Cram) but under bonds
or ousted. They progressed no objection
to Mr.. Oxnard; but the latter stood by
Mr.. Cram, declaring that he would re-
| to stand or fall.
| Judge Symonds then returned to the
| administration of the trust. Mr.. Oxnard
testified that in the nineteen years of the
| trust the income had been S247, no, of
which they had disbursed $246, $40. Thus
on the average amount of the principal
nearly per cent gross, or per cent net
had been realized. III all $3.50, 800 had
| been disbursed to beneficiaries
| In regard to the railroad securities Mr..
Oxnard testified that all of them had
been bought with great care: and he did
not believe that even in this time of
| panic those securities would suffer a
| total depreciation of over $1,000, which
was not large sum for such an estate.
And when times should improve he be-
| lieved that the securities of the estate
would show an adavnce of 20 per cent,
which would mean a handsome gain for
| the estate.
In times past the beneficiaries have
always showed disposition to have the
income as large as could be squeezed out
| of the estate.
Cross-q uestioned by Mr.. Strout, Mr..
| Oxnard said the branches of the family
had generally desired division of the
estate, and the trustees had been willing,
| provided the division could be made
legally. But the existence of benficiaries
who were minors had stopped any plans.
| Judge Symonds here explained that
under the terms of the will it was posi-
BILE for the whole estate to go to an un-
born child in one bran CHI; and this
nature of the will had prevented all
| division, even when it was proposed to
divide the trust into six trusteeships. one
for each branch of the family.