Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-31
THE BANK STOCK
Dispositions of Col. Sanders
and J. B. Clayberg Filed
AND OBJECTIONS ARE MADE
Both Testify That Every Effort Was
Made to Win the Suit Against
A. J. Davis, Jr.
AND OBJECTIONS ARE MADE

In the Davis bank stock case in which
Erwin Davis is complainant and Andrew
]. Davis Jr., ct al, defendants, the de-
positions of Col. w. F. Sander and At
torney John B. Clayberg were filed this
morning with Special Examiner Blair in
the United States court. Accom-
panying the documents are the objections
of the complainant to certain questions
contained in the dispositions.
The deposition of Col. Sanders is to the
effect that he was connected with the con-
test for the probate of the will of the late
A. j. Davis in 1891 and 1892, as one of the
counsel for the prepayment Of the will, Mr..
John a. Davis. Col. Sanders stated that
he was employed in the prosecution of the
suit of James A. Talbot, special admins
traitor, to recover for the estate the shares
of stock of the First National bank of
Butte from Andrew j. Davis, who claim
ed them as his own property. Associated
with him We're Messrs. ToOle and Wallace.
and Mcconnell, Clayberg and Gum, but
only Col. Sanders, Toole and Clayberg
were actively engaged on the trial of the
case. Col. Sanders was employed by Mr..
Talbot with the understanding that he
do to have the estate recover everything
that belonged to it, n that the case was
one Of great delicacy and difficulty ow-
ing to certain events which had transpir-
ed in the presence of Mr.. Talbot, touching
the shares of bank stock in controversy
and for hat reason he (Mr. Talbot wish
ed the pStat tie TO he we'll Or hlV rpnrpSanf.
edit
Before the trial Col. Sanders had a
consultation with Mr.. Talbot touching
the transfer or gift of the shares of stock
by Andrew J. Davis, ST., to A. j.. Davis
Jr. Mr.. Talbot said that Andy knew that
ne was cognizant of the facts and he pre-
sumed he would be called upon to testify
to them. Neither Mr.. Talbot or MI. Ley
son animated at any time that they de-
sired Col. Sanders to- do anything that
would favor A. J. Davis Jr's claim
to the bank.
state, if you remember, how the tes-
tlmony of j. R. Boyce. Jr., given upon the
witness stand in the bank stock case COM
pared with the statements he had made
to yourself and other counsel before as
to what he would testify to-" Col. Sand
erS was asked.
In detail 1 cannot ~restate and contrast
that which he said to us in consultations
with HIM during the recess of the court
at the trial, but this know, that his
statements to us of facts which he said
he knew, caused the expectation that he
would testify to them on the witness
stand"
Col. Sanders further stated that the
reason the transcript of James A. Tai
bots testimony IN relation to the gift OF
the bank stock was not put in evidence
was that counsel were of the opinion that
1t was likely to be decided that he could
Xpla1n those statements orally upon the
witness stand if they were introduced.
whereas II they were not introduced he
was an incompetent witness and there
was likely to be more harm come from
thelr introduction tina by emitting them.
Col. Sander said he had known w. G
Darnold personally for twenty or twenty
i've years. Mr.. Darnold's appearance on
the witness stand on the trial of the case
was very much against him to those who
mad known HIM for some time and did not
create any surprise.
what do you know in regard to what
MI. Corbctt testified to as to Mr.. Claw
berg making a remark to- the effect that
you dld not know how you could intro
duce the evidence of A. J. Davis. .Jr in
the BANK stock case, if your client Womb
not let ou?' "i'
lhefe never was such q remark made
IN my presence by Mr.. Claybere or any
one else; Such remark would have
startled me, because it was so contrary
TO all our relations with Mr.. Talbot and r
am certain it would rave induced me and
J. am satisfied the other counsel TO have
taken steps to emanctpate ourselves from
any limitation of that kind
In answer to another question Colonial
Sanders said: Speaking for myself every
item or testimony was introduced within
my knowledge hat I deemed material
and helpful to the estate, and no circum-
stance occurred during the trial, which
lasted a week or so, induced a belief that
my colleagues omitted anything. 1t will
sometimes occur during the progress of
a trial that the trial itself will reveal tes-
tilnony not foreseen which can be OBJ
tanned, but my recollection of this case
is that nothing of material Importance
was so revealed during the trial.
In your experience as a lawyer is it
not frequently a close and serious uues-
ton with counsel as to whether or not
certain evidence had better be offered or
left out with a view to the success of your
client in the case?"
1T is; every lawyer has to determine
that from his view of the materiality of
the vidence and its probable influence
upon the court"
Col. Sanders was of the opinion hat
XXyL ~~I<