The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-08-05

tracted TO your knowledge!
"Did Won and the other attorneys for
the plaintiff in the bank stock 'ass
ever consult as to the a~dvisabihiy OF
using that AFFIDAVIT upon 'ther
grounds?" ,u.
We'll. the matter was pretty fuliy
discussed at that time as TO the Use
. fulness of the affidavit. / do not re-
member Just exactly what concIusIoh
was used. If any. have the ln'ptes
sion that no final conclusion was
reached al the time Mr.. Corbett put II
In his safe. | know that i said that as
far as 1 was concerned L would heeP
nv engagement with Darnold cohsl5l
entity. But what was p~erplexlnS my
mind was as TO what Mr.. Boyce sou
az TO whether IL was consistent 10 az
sumo the use OF IL; lhueeu' M nv"
that was true or not is another ques-
| ton .ho.
amdavit. did Mr.. Boyce at that ume
show any personal Interest IN the m"'-
;er?'
Yes, sir"
What was it?"
he told me ne a business relations
with the defendant. A. j. DAVIS IT, anu
he was laboring to bring about a set
Element. | think he claimed Mr.. DAVIS
was a silent partner in his business
and was liable for his debts. he hau
heen attached and broken up. Az any
rate he was expecting to make some
Arrangement with Mr.. Davis oy Whlcn
he could settle his Indebtedness ana
get on his feet again. He spoke OF tha'
in NV office when this affidavlt was
made | think / inquired or MN ms
interest in the matter. i recoIlect uis,
tinctly that the conversation was hau
in regard TO his business relations Win
A. J.. Davis. Jr."
Il do"
DO YOU know that he was connected
with the bank stock case?'
II think not. He was not to my
knowledge" a,
..Did YOU ever have any talk with
Judge Stapleton in regard to statements
made to him by Mr.. Darnoldg'
Il did"
: what was it?"
.On the same day that / came over
: here in connection will that afhdavlt
! had been told by MIR. Boyce that oar
5 mold had made the same statement l.
him that he had made to me. wen.
! to Mr.. Stapleton's office and asked MN
: about it. He told me he had maze sur
~stantially the same statements as Wei'
I in the affidavit, and | asked him &c
make an AFFIDAVIT to that effect, tina
we might use il on a motion for a new
trial. He refused to do IT,"
{ Ibid MIR. Stapleton give any reason
for not making the Affidavit
Yes, sir. | am not able to state thos'
reasons very clearly. My recollection
z Is he felt he had not been treated eX
n actly right by the contestants In ina
will case that were represented in rela
ton to employment in II. l am NOT am
to give the particulars as 10 what IL
said"
. Did he say anything about the mat
/, ter being unpTofessional for an attorhe,
!, TO make AFFIDAVIT OF such matters?'
Il do not know that he said II Il
hat way. | think he made some Oh
~ lection upon the ground OF being take
- 10 as an attorney. He did not like I
make affidavit as to matters WhlCh ma
been said to him. | was given the I'M
presslon that he did not feel altogethe
: kindly to our client, that is TO IN
= clients we represented. | may be mis-
= taken about this. ] am not positive.
ie Now, Judge, I'm reading over Mr.. Col
'' belts testimony you probably notlce
v he made some statements concernln
v the evidence of Andrew j. Davis give
NJ upon the administration contest in 1879
r and some statements as to why thi
evidence was not introduced in Il
bank stock case in 1894. h is yol
ne knowledge about hat evidence al
why 1t was not used
i II was not present at the trial or tn
es case and what | know in regard TO IL
from consultation ] had with M
es Clayberg. distinctly recollect that v
m concluded that Andrew j. Davis WI
of not a competent witness In the bar
as stock case. That he could not be |
or troduced I'm his own behalf, but '
might introduce what he had stat
as an admission against him. But
we did introduce il against him as
- InAHA Nhn ENphf
ad rebuttal to give his explanation or ir
ia pression of il. In that way we wou
n. substantially make him competent. v
.er thought II was to our interest to ke
TO him out of IL entirely. We thought '
could get the facts from other sourc
IN that would make a case in the law
nf which we ought to win the suit wit
,ht out jeopardfzing the case
What Instructions did Mr.. TalbC
,ar give you in regard to the bank sto
,re case?"
II only know from what Mr.. Cla
81 berg told me. ] was not present wh
II was done. My recollection OF 1t
that MIR. Toole and Mr.. Clayberg n
~ represented certain heirs In n cont'
pe OF the will, and were interested in I
a. establishment of the rights of the he
We to all Of this estate. and he wanted
rs employ them for that reason
They were In the situation, vi
liEi their complete knowledge of the ca
NY and their interest In the matter. II
he selected them from their situation
~ relation to the case, as the best m
l,h that could put up the strongest rs
possihle to obtain the bank stock for
10 estate. and Mr.. Talbot instructed
NE Clayberg TO put up the best hght
could"
Yes. sir. that Is the substance OF
ma What, II any. effect would the
cision OF the bank stock case hs
IN financially on the attorneys emplo,
al by Mr.. Talbott?"
;hs We'll. II would increase the assets
an distribution among the heirs up 10
in amount 81 the yalue OF the stock. VIII
TO was a large sum, and in that "
his would increase the amount our Gle
would get. and better enable them
to nav the fees Of their attorneys"