The morning news., 1894-09-02

= : 7
TO indemnify the petitioners and inter
yenors against loss in the proceedings.
SOME OBJECTIONABLE ISSUES.
Mr.. Barrow moved to strike from the
answer all portions referring 30 the rate
war, the Parsons system and Mr. Harri-
man, which he considered irrelevant and
improper, and gave notice that he would
enter demurrer in writing.
Mr.. Barrow was answered by Mr.
Adams, VINO suggested that his learned
friend was joking. and proceeded % show
Ghat there was no reason why
any part of the answer should
be stricken out. The answer was their
AFFIDAVIT, he said and it was surprising
that the opposing council should ask that
any portion of their evidence be elimina-
/ ted. The purpose of that portion TO which
Mr.. Barrow objected. Mr.. Adams said
was to show the true inwarduess of the
charge and to uncover the conspiracy IL
was, he said, 10 show that the real pur-
pose of the bill was not 10 collect a debt,
but to aid conspiracy to wreck
| rival property. Mr.. Adams said
they proposed to show that an
an absolute agreement had been entered
( into by the parties To the petition and
Mr.. Hartman, in which the latter
agreed to indemnify the parties to the pc
tlJion. and even went so far as TO offer TO
pay their claims.
Mr. Barrow desired to introduce paper
called for by the attorneys for the Eletrc
railway, said to be the contract between
MIR. Hartman and the parties to the suit
IN answer TO Mr.. Adams but was pre-
vented by an objection from the attorneys
on the other side. Mr.. Barrow entered
personal disclaimer of any knowledge of
such paper. He next introduced a
statement from Capt. j. II. Johnston,
making an stimate of the value of the
Electric railway property, which he
estimated at Sl9l,45O last Decem Der, with
additions and Improvements since then
amounting TO about S25,00O.
MR.. HARTMAN on THE STAND.
Mr.. Charlton called Mr. Hartman
to the stand and then the fun began.
Mr.. Charlton asked him if he
had in his possession the paper before al
luded to, guaranteeing to indemnity the
parties to the petition against damages
Mr.. Hartman was prevented by Mr..
Barrow from answering the question, and
proceeding TO argue that the question
whether Mr.. Hartman had in his posses
sion such paper had no relation TO the
petition. Mr.. Barrow cited authorities
in support of his petition.
Juuge Falligant decided that it was
proper that the court should have all the
light possible upon the case.
Mr.. Charlton then renewed his ques-
tion. The examination continued as
follows
Q. Is your name j. N. Hartmann A.
II is.
O. Have you in your possession a GER
tain paper executed by you agreeing to
indemnify and guaranteeing against loss
any of the parties plaintiff TO this case,
or any of the intervenOrs or any person
who was any intervenor, because Of their
becoming a party to this suit2 A. l
have not
Q. When did it pass out Of your hands?
A. never had 1t in my possession.
Q. You never had such paper? A. No,
sir
Q. Is there any such paper in existence
signed with your name3 A. There may
be-
Q. Can you explain to the court how
such q paper came to have your name
signed to it by you without ever having
been in your possessionf A. don't un-
derstand you.
Q. You know what possession means
have you ever had it in your possession?
A. l signed such paper.
Q. Were you compelled to sign it, or
did you do so Voluntarily A. l did so
voluntarily.
Q. Where Is that papor2 A. don't
know
Q. To whom did you give it, A. Mr..
Logan, agent Of the Sloss Iron and Steel
Company.
.. Was that before or after this case
was begun? A. After two or three days.
Q. What day was it, A. l don't re-
member.
Q. About what time? A. Possibly
week ago.
Q. About what time of the day2 A. In
the afternoon.
Q. About what time in the afternoon?
A. | don't remember
9. What instructions did you give Mr..
Logan about this paperl A When | gave
him that guaranty it was because my as
sociate was n large stockholder in the
Sloss Iron and Steel Company and was
desirous he should collect that bill.
=. Who was your associate! A. Mr..
George Parsons
., Whom did you tell MIR Logan to see}
A. | did not tell him to see anybody
Q. Did you not send him to the Palmer
Hardware COmpanyl A. No, sir.
q. Did you see Mr.. Hull2 A. No, sir.
Mr.. Barrow objected to the wide range
the questions were taking.
THE DIETER SUIT IN IT.
MIR Charlton asked Mr. Hartman if he
was not obligated to pay the expenses of
the Dieter suit against the Electric rail
way.
Mr.. Barrow objected to this question
auu ms OOJectlOn was sustained by Judge
Falligant
MIR. Charlton then inquired If Mr.. Har-
riman had not made an agreement with
Mr.. E. A. Smith for s., 900 Of his bonds
to be delivered to Mr.. Paulseu, and MIR.
Hartman replied he had no agreement
with Mr.. Smith, but the latter had
offered him bonds at Is.
Did not you meet Mr. Mackall in
johnson square few days ago aud tell
him that you had contract with MIR.
Smith for -, 600 of bonds and ask him
to see MIR. Paulsen about them?"
mo, sir
Mr. Charlton cross examined Mr.. Har-
riman very closely as to whether he had
not subsequently received a letter from
MIR. Mackal with reference to this mat
ter. MIR. Hartman Acknowledged this
to be correct, but said that Mr. Mackall
did not specify the Smith bonds in his let
ter.
In response to further questioning he
said he had an option upon $4,000 of
bonds from Mr.. c. {. Ely
who bought MIR Smiths coupons2"
asked Mr.. Charlton
81 did, ~ replied Mr. Hartman.
Mr. Charlton brought out that those
coupons had been broken up into three
lots and sent for collection through three
different banks.
Mr. Hartman said that he represented
himself and was not an agent for MIR
Parsons. He said that MIR. Parsons