The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-06

been taken in regard to the sale prior
to Feb. 25, 1895.
Witness swore that such action had
been taken, but he made no record of
1t until it was In shape as a proposition
for the court to consider. The matter
was certainly talked over considerably
and great consideration given it.
Mr.. Jackson asked the witness if he
had not advocated the buying up of the
first mortgage by the trust company,
and as many of the New England
creditors as could be gathered togeth-
er. Witness admitted that he had
thought that way, but the plan did
not appear to be feasible. A letter
from Mr.. Coombs was read, which out
lined a plan for taking up the first
mortgage, and in the event of a fail
ure to do SO, advised the adoption of
Mr.. Hamblin's plan. This was the
plan where the trust company was to
put up $3.50 cash, and other creditors
a like amount
why was it neither of these plans
were carried out?''
I'VE had not so much money"
We'll, throwing away $3.50 900 of
bonds for $4,000 was a, great deal of
money, wasn't il? ?" asked Mr.. Jackson
we did not throw them away" was
the quiet reply.
Inc witness was handed a pencil and
paper and asked to compute the
amount of money belonging to the
fund from a report of the trust COM
pany. The figuring showed that &c.,
600 had been collected, with disburse-
ments for the same period of about
$4,000 leaving money belonging to that
fund Of s35, 600.
so to carry out the original project
you would only have to raise about
S45,000?" asked Mr. Jackson.
Yes, but the court discouraged it.,
Judge Russell, I think, was spoken to
ABOUT 1t, by Mr.. Hamblin," was the re-
ply.
Mr.. Jackson inquired where the $780,
geo was and demanded that he bring
In bank books to show where the
money was at that time. The witness
signlfied his willingness to bring In
such proof The witness admitted that
1t was the intention Of the committee
to take care of the first mortgage when
Mr.. Hamblin went to Boston, but at
that time they thought they could
raise money on the bonds. The mat
ter had often been discussed in the
committee meetings, and they had con-
cluded that it was not the duty of the
trust company to advance it's own
money.
1.-THE security was good, wasn't it?"
asked Mr.. jackson.
Not when it came to selling it's
lots
You weren't buying lots, were you,
when you took up that mortgage?"
Il think we were. If we took up the
mortgage, all we could look to for our
money was the sale of the lots, and
there was not much sale for vacant
lots then
A letter from Mr. Hamblin to Mr..
Kneeland was offered in evidence,
showing that he had asked the latter
If he knew Of any place where a small
loan could be made, to meet the con-
tingency, which in the letter was spok-
en- of as a ridiculously small amount
WAS there ever a time" asked Mr..
Jackson, when you actually made up
your mind that the best thing to be
done was to sell the bonds at 10 cents
on the dollar?"
Yes, sir, there was, after that trip
to Chicago"
when was it that you thought best
for the Minneapolis Trust company to
buy at 10 cents on the dollar, instead
of selling?"
THAT was part of the plan," said the
Did you consider it was a good thing for
the Minneapolis Trust company to buy those
bonds?"
1T was all one transaction" said the wit
Now as a matter of fact" said Mr.. Jack
son, ''the Minneapolis Trust company, as
ceiver, got 10 cents on the dollar, while the
Minneapolis Trust company as trustee, threw
away It's bonds for 10 cents on the dollar?'
That's one way to look at it,
The witness was asked to explain how 1t
that the trust company made the dis
tinction, and withheld portion OF the bonds
for sale, which were exchanged for new bonds
but could not give the explanation desired by
the questioner. A letter from Theophilus King
to c. N. Hamblin was produced and read to
the jury, relative to the offers for the sale
Of the Guaranty Loan building, showing that
Coombs had objected to the sale Of the build
ing, but had withdrawn the objection when
the West Pullman deal promised to go
through.
When did you first know that Mr.. Hamb-
lin was one of the parties interested in the
purchase Of those bonds?
mot for a long time after the sale was
made"
You are not now connected with the Min
neapolis Trust company"
No, sir; not now-not since Nov. 1, 1896. :"
why did you leave?"
81 preferred to do it,
did you resign from that company be-
cause you could not make yourself response
BILE for some Of its methodist"
NO. sir: that is not so.''
What l want to show said Mr.. Jackson
''is that the reason Mr.. Lindley resigned was
because as secretary, he had to sign fnan-
cial statements that were false and untrue
Have you not told people that such is
the case?"
NO. sir; never"
The witness stepped down. and Mr.. Jack
son began the reading of the deposition of
Edwin A Smith, of Boston, which will be
concluded this morning.