The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-08-09

Rovce. tr. & Co. Mr.. Toole said ne had
read the affidavit OF W. c. Darnold.
relative to his testimony in the district
court. to the effect that what he hsd
said Was false.
What have you 10 say as 10 now
that affidavit came to be made
MIR. DarnoId stopped me on the
street one day as I was going ifoh
the McDermott hotel TO the cours
, house. some time after the trial ana
said be had concluded TO make an am-
davit as to what he had testified TO NJ
the trial. | did not care TO tax 10 hlh,
I for reasons OF my own, ana the mex
/ heard from him Mr.. Boyce talked 70
me about Darnold's testimony anu NJ
! desire to make an affidavit A~fterWaro
I Mr.. Royce and Mr.. Darnold came 10
/ my office in Helena and said they came
there for the purpose OF taxing iaus
/ nold's affidavit OF which he had talk@u
To me about. ] still did not care 10
have anything to do with II ana j
told him TO go and see Mr.. Clayberg.
1 They left my office and ] did NOT see
them again in Helena. After Darnold
/ affidavit had been aiken II was hhuer-
I stood that we would come over hele
and take the ahdaVits of Mr.. Boycs,
/ Mr. Curtis and Mr.. St7oletOn, ana, 1
I think. also MIR. Welcome. When
came over here Mr.. Clayberg. 'oloh'l
I Sanders and myself called on MT. Sta-
pleton. Mr.. Boyce ana MI 'uItis
. were there MI F-A lAN'''
not believe I'm lawyers making ainua-
Wits unless for very particular reasons,
and he saw no such reasons for making
an AFFIDAVIT then. lie then proceeded
to take the anldavits OF MI Boyce auu
Mr. curtis. Mr.. Boyce suggested,
among other things, that there hai
been some agreement made with judge
Mcconnell that the af1davtt OF MT
parnold should rot he used unless MI
Darnold could he safe from any prose-
- --.s.gua IL NAnG tho first A
had heard OF any such agreement. ana
MIR. Clayberg, Colonel Sanders ana my
self held a consultation and came 10
the conclusion that IL would be lm-
proper 10 use ;he affidavit under the
circumstances, as 1t would be an oct
of Injustice To Judge Mcconnell and a
breach Of faith. II came TO us. now
ever. that the same facts had been
conveyed to Mr.. Boyce, Mr.. Stapleton
and Mr.. Curtis. and we proceeded 20
take the affidavits OF Mr.. b9yce anu
Mr.. Curtis. They were used on me
motion for a new trial to show that the
Testimony which Mr.. Darnold had given
AT the trial was false. 1t had been
agreed by all counsel that we could not
use Darnold's AFFIDAVIT without u NloIa-
tion OF good faith
The witness was asked what he had
TO saw relative TO the testimony OF
Frank f.. Corbett to the effect hat ne
had stated to Mr.. Clayberg that IN ms
oplnion the testimony of Andy DAVIS
was important and should be intro
duced, to which Mr.. ClayDerg repneu
with the query, how could 1t be when MS
client would not permit il. Mir. Toole
said that Mr.. Clayberg, Colonel Sanders
and himself hid consulted ana hau
concluded not to use the IN
regard to the statement OF MT. Boyce
that he had impaired certain lniofina-
ton to Mr.. Toole at the funeral OF An
III not hnhn EAl
at the trial, the witness said mat the
rma referred to was not given
TO him until after the trial and was
then embodied in Mr.. Boyce's at1daVl'
? and was used on motion for a new tflal
The witness asked Mr.. Boyce why M
{ did not give the information before aiO
/ he renlied that he had expected TO reacf
a compromise with Mr.. Davis in regar'
to the affairs OF the J. II. Boyce com
D many. The testimony Of Mr.. WELCOME
{ was not used at the trial because he wa
no. in the city and his deposition dl'
Z not arrive I'm time. Mr.. Toole aid III
left nothing undone that could nav
= been lone in the case for the beneht o
tho heirs of the estate and he believe'
that his associate counsel did the same
I'm reference to the charges Of conspl
racy and collision, made in the com
%plaint. between MI. Talbot and his at
torneys. MIR. Toole said there was no
I a word of truth in IL. To the allegation
regarding a pretended suit brought II
the district court, the witness repHe'
that the suit was nor a fictitious one
but a bona ide action. He did not be
!, lieye that there was an attorney in IN
case who could have been bought I
carry on a sham fight. As TO the allege'
failure Of The attorneys TO cross-exam
inc some of the defendants witnesse:
Mr.. Toole said there was a very scru
az hNNH ~ ~
not shown In the appeal record becaus
the examination had simply strengthen
ed the statements made on direct exam
nation. In regard TO the charge ina
an objection had been waived 10 tn
testimony of Judge Knowles when
might have been excluded, the witnes
said he had known Judge knowle :
well that he knew he would tell all !
knew and If he knew anything benetlci'
to the plaintiff he would tell IL, ana
did testify that subsequent TO the a
legged gift Of the bank stock 10 Andy
Davis. Judge Davis had talked 10 nj
about making a will and of his inter
ton TO give the bank to his nephew. Nj
Toole said he made the most OF tn
statement in his arguments before u
courts and In his brief.
70 AT the conclusion of Mr.. Toole's dire
AZ examination the hearing was adJourn'
~ for the noon hour.
~ Al the afternoon session Mr.. Too
was cross-examined by Mr.. Demon
|, The witness said IL was his unde
70 standing that the supreme court ne
that the eff; of the bank was ma
to Andy Causa Norris. He was ask
why he did not offer in evidence NJ
70 Talbott's testimony, made in 1890. }
said that II was because Mr.. Talbo
said his testimony would be the sar
, as in the previous examination, a.
so Mr.. Talbot was merely asked whet
G or his answers. previously made, We
, correct. Mr.. Talbot VAS asked ever
2 thing thai was thought to be materi
{ Mr.. Talbot had stated to him,
thought. that the gift was so con-
tional that its validity was doaotf
~ Tz,In u-,u .gJaA whN he Aid Z