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

kept it to himself. Asked why he put
Mr.. Gage in the directory on the 10th of
January, Mr.. Fisher said that he did
not want too big a fight on his hands.
Messrs. Fairchild, Porter, Whitaker and
Eisenberg were exceedingly vicious, and
doing all they could to injure the
bank when they found that he (Fisher)
had control. They went all over town
telling all about the depositors, and he
did not want to have Gage with his
enemies. 1t was to avoid this, and for
this reason alone, that he put Mr.. Gage
on the directorate.
Messrs. Register and Myron Hutchin-
son were called to corroborate Mr.. Fisher
as to the many confidential talks that
Messrs. Fisher and Gage had together
about this time.
The deposition OF Geo. H. Fairchild
was then read. The witness testified
that he wanted to get out of the bank
if he could sell his stock. He tried to
get Messrs. E%isenberg and Porter to put
enough money in the bank to secure con-
troll, but failing in that he desired to sell
out. Conferences were held with MI. I.
P. Baker relative to his securing control
of the bank, and the witness gave Mr..
Baker all the points he could relative to
the matter. In the fall of 1892 witness
knew someone was buying up stock, but
he did not know it was Mr.. Fisher. Mr..
Cages ten shares of stock cost him ST.
$50. Mr.. n. r. Porter held an option on
the Strauss stock till January 9Th. Wit
ness possessed considerable solicitude
concerning the management of the affairs
of the bank by Mr.. Fisher. Witness saw
a man put $1,000 into Mr.. Eisenberg's
hand, and tell him to go to Mr.. Gage and
offer him that for five shares of stock.
Mr.. Eisenberg left, and when he re.
turned he said that Mr.. Gage would not
| sell.
The deposition of Dan Eisenberg was
then read. He testified to the struggle
made between the two factions in the
bank to secure control. Mr.. Baker was
working with Messrs. Fairchild and the
witness to secure control. After the
Shaw stock was secured on December
II, 1892, that gave his side 1876 shares of
stock. At the annual meeting of direc-
tors in Januhry, 1892, the Fairchild fac
ton did not vote, as the other fellows
had a majority.
This afternoon a jury case was taken
up, that of OConnor Va. Lenihan.
Michael T. O'Connor is suing Arthur
Lenihan for $3.50, the value Of a team Of
horses sold by plaintiff to defendant in
1891, and which it is alleged, has never
been paid for. Lenihan claims the debt
has been paid and the case resolves
itself into a case of veracity between the
two.
From Wednesdays Daily.]
Yesterday afternoon the hearing of the
case of Gage VS.. Fisher was resumed.
After some additional testimony on the
part of the defense, the defense rested
and the plaintiff opened in rebuttal.
Mr.. Gage wat the first witness, and he
was examined by Mr.. Clasp oil. He
started in to recite infinitely the relations
that had existed between himself and
Mr.. Fisher; how they had discussed mat
ters relating to the First National bank,
and how they had finally made the deal
that is the subject of this controversy.
In most of the testimony he agreed with
MIR. Fisher, but there are some salient
parts of Mr.. Fishers testimony where
the plaintiff dlsagrees with him. For
example, Mr.. Gage denies that he ever
suggested to Mr.. Fisher that he should
let the Shaw stock slip through his
hands; he denies that on any such &C.
casion Mr.. Fisher told him that if he did
this, the Fairchild contingent would be
after him Gage) and would tempt him.
Mr.. Gage claimed that the Shaw episode
was one for which Mr.. Fisher wal en-
tirely responsible, and that the trap
which Mr.. Fisher had outlined as having
been set and sprung for him by Mr..
Gage, existed only in Mr.. Fishers i'm
agination. Mr.. Gage admitted conf
dental relations on bank matters; ad.
mitted that together they were after the
Fairchild management, but claimed that
the sale OF his ten shares Of stock to Mr..
Fisher was a bona tide sale :ntinged by
any fraud or the exercise of undue in
~huence; that MI. Baker had offered Mr..
Gage 5000 for five shares Of the stock.
whereas Mr.. Gage sold twice that mum.
Der of shares to Mr.. Fisher for $1,000
$1,000 cash and the note being sued
upon. Further, Mr.. Gage maintained
that that the agreement as to his being
made cashier was made after the sale of
the stock to Fisher, and not before, as
claimed by the defendant.
At about this point, court adjourned
till this morning.
THIS MORNING.
| Mr. (.ouo roor,pno1 H., %.. RI