The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-23
WILLIAMS ON THE STAND
THE STATE TAX BOARDS INSURANCE
"EXPERT' CALLED YESTERDAY.
Surrender Value of Policies shown i'm
Court-Heavy Mortgage FOrecIos-
ure-The Divorce Docket.

In the suit to prevent the State Board of
Tax Commissioners from requiring the
holders of life insurance policies to pay
taxes on these policies, on trial before
Judge Allen, of the Circuit Court, E. D.
Williams, the ''actuary' brought here from
Plttsburg to assist the state in fixing the
values on policies, was the only witness.
After an hours delay yesterday morning
the state put Williams on the stand. He
gave expert testimony tc show the sLrren-
der value of the insurance policies intro
duced in the case. Williams testified that
he had been familiar with the life insur-
ance business since 1870 He spent five
years as an agent soliciting risks and in
1871 he took up the occupation of a ''math-
ematcian," another name fer "actuary,"
ne explained. For two yeas he WIS en-
gagged with the Reserve Life Association of
New YORK. The witness said he had been
engaged since 1877 in The WORK of estimating
the value of life insurance policies. Mr.
Williams based his knowledge on these val
ues on the figures shown in an deliberately
prepared chart. He estimated the surren-
der value of the policies held by the plain
tits in the case as follows: Levi Sohl,
$5,l4676; John H. Holiday, $256.42; James
Q. Barcus, SIT. The attorneys for the tax
a
of the premium paid in on insuran, &c poll
cies goes to the reserve fund; that this is
inyiolable and the amount of this accu-
mulated on policy constitutes, to that de-
gree at least, a surrender value in policy.
The cross-examination OF the witness was
rigid and scathing and Judge Allen cnce or
twice was constrained to interfere.
L don't propose that any witness shall
ha inGT Tod iY, 49,
judge at one time during the examination.
Attorney A. G. Smith, after inuulring of
the witness how ne came 10 interest him
self in the case, wanted to know if he
was the tax boards mathematician adj
wiser. Williams replied that he was not
directly so.
Il was called oy tie state board" he
fix the values on life Insurance policies
Where did you stop wnen you fist came
to the city?" asked the attorney
ia like to know whose business that
is, inquired the witness bridling up in
stantly He afterward answered the ques-
ton at the courts suggestion.
What business had you here after you
got through with the tax board?" asked the
attorney.
That is nobody's business but my own"
retorted the witness, and again the court
commanded him to reply to the attorneys
question. Williams said he had been wait
ing for some expert" work which he ex-
pected would come in. He said he was to
prepare some figures for a new insurance
company. Williams declared he had re-
ceived nothing for his work up to this
time, but expected the state to pay him
what he asked when he got ready to put
in his bill. He declared he had paid his
own expenses while here and had received
nothing from the state
The plaintiffs attorney then tried to
show that Williams had been engaged in
the business of inducing people to sue in
surance companies; that he had represented
to clients that the sum of $500, 900 was
held by a number of the old line companies
as a reserve fund and this money having
been obtained as saving bank deposits was
payable to depositors on demand Attorney
Smith produced a six-page circular which
it was claimed Williams had scattered
broadcast, announcing that these reserve
funds were held by insurance companies
simply as saving bank deposits. The wit
ness admitted having sent out the circular.
The plaintiffs got through with the wit
ness last night and attorneys stated there
would be more testimony. Monday the
argument will begin, each side taking a day
at Speech-making.