Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-30
witness knew of nor stocks or bonds

signed IT. 50 Tar as ne cOulu fecall that was all that took place at that time. or at any other time. regarding 1 the signing of the paper. Quarter of
 m hour later he gave her the paper again, saying Judge Cole said she would have to sign it again. Neither witness nor Mrs Parsons read the pa per in the presence of each other. Un- der cross-exa imitation witness denied giving orders to the bank clerks as to the performance of their duties. He did net recall saying. Do not endorse any paper. but simply pay out and re- cc;Te, as usual" As to telling Atto1- ncy John P. Kellogg, S. ". Kellogg or Nr Robinson that he lad given such an order. he would not say that ne did nor. The same reply he gave as to whether he had spoken to Mr Bryan of the Manufacturers bank about buy ing the bank. He thought he spoke to Charles Holmes also about this mat ter. This he did for the benefit of the estate. He told Mrs Parsons about this. but could not recall the exact words. He was administrator then. By the court: "Did Mrs Parsons know from your talk with her that the business was going on?"
 ''She must have known it."
 "Can you give any conversation you had with her at that time." "No."
 'Did she ask you where you got the paper to sign for the appointment of a receiverE
 ''She did not"
 Before the receivers were appointed did she say anything?"
 No except she may have said that it was the best thing to do. l men, toned to her MT Chase and MT Elton as the receivers"
 Do you know if any attorney con suited with her after her husbands death?"
 Not that I know
 Do you know from what was said between you that she knew what you did in connection with the receiver ship? Did she knew that you were consulting an attorney?
 II don't know
 Did she instruct you to engage an attorney?'
 No. sir"
 To, MT O'Neill: 'T did not tell her that Judge Cole drew up the paper -s, I.Did she know what you were do- ing: what would result from her sign ing this paper?'
  could for the estate. I did not tell her how bad affairs in the bank were. nor did she ask I did not tell her that spoke to Mir Bryan or to MT Holmes about buying the business and that they refused until the exact condition of the bank was made known to them. MT Merriman then went down and Henry H. Peck took his place. He well knew MT Parsons in every respect and he had the repu- tation of being one of the soundest men in the city. His reputation finan- cially had it he was worth from Slo.OOO to S3OOOO J. Hobart Bronson, presl- dent of the Oakville Co, gave similar evidence. MT Williams then under took to rebut MT Barlow's testimony by introducing the daily accounts of the Barlow Bros Co between February 12. '95. and July ?, '96. when. it is claimed. Mir Parsons conducted the bank alone Another deposition was read. It showed that Mrs Parsons in her direct eNarlS alton denied that she had any interest in the bank Or. knew that the plaintiff had any deposits there. Under cross-eAaminatlon she stated that she did not complain to her husband or to anybody else about her name being iu the advertisements re-
  c. s. Parsons & Go: that she took par ticular pains to not see the papers that contained the advertisements because if was distasteful to sheI. to sec her name in any paper after some one had told her of it. Sine did not know if her account in G.. s. Parsons x Cos bank was almost constantly over drawn; all the checks drawn on the hank We're signed by her. that is, great many of them. Before he gave her a check book sine gave him all her bills and he sent her checks in pay 1nent The checks drawn by her on the Dime Savings bank were not re- turned to her. Never q word was said to her as to the signing a bond on July ?. '9G. indemnifying the Holmes heirs | against possible loss. She did not give | any directions to MT Merriman as to the affairs of the bank 1 after her husbands death. She thought l MT Merriman was conducting her af- | fairs. She believed that Mr Merriman and 'those in the bank examined the affairs of the bank. She did not know who managed the bank between the date of her husbands death and the | appointment of the receivers. She did | not recall if she gave any directions | as to her husbands funeral. but sup posed she was consulted by MT Merri- man. She did not know that checks drawn on the G. s. Parsons l bank were returned protested. Nor | did she know where the money to | pay her checks presented at the bank would come from, except from her ac- ,ount She did not know what use | her husband had of her name in his | business.
 .sWhy then did you say you did not want your property involved in his lffairs?''
 Because did not want it involved" ssYou had implicit trust in his busi- aess precaution?'
 "He always transacted my business
 The deposition showed that she did | lot know that her husband had signed ler name to checks and she did not mink he sent out checks to pay bills the had not signed, She could not remember if she told Mir Merriman1 hat Inc would have to do the best he ,oilld with. the affairs of the bank when he had told her that they were nsa bad way and she did not read the papers the few days following the