Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-28
LAWYERS BATTLE.
Opposing Counsel Contesting
 Every Inch of Ground.
IN THE FAMOUS PARSONS CASE.


 Williams-The Jury Excused While Counsel Argued a Point-Several of Yesterdays Witnesses Recalled to the Stand To-day.
 When the so-called, Parsons case was adjourned yesterday afternoon, it appeared to be in q critical state. The decision of the court on q point of law as to the admissibility of Watson M. Hurlburts evidence regarding q note, and mortgage deed as security of the note which. as naS already been stated, he gave in consideration of q loan of S1S.000 to Mrs Parsons on Oc- toher 30. is supposed to have cOnSid- erable bearing in favor of the defense. At least. the defense take ii as q point , in their favor. The objections to MT Hurlburt'S testimony were considered at great length and detail hy the court and passed upon in the same order. Everybody present seemed to feel that something important had come. for the utmost stiffness was observed while the court was giving his decision. It was given slow and with most appar- ent deliberatiOn.
 MT ONeill held that if he gave to Mrs Parsons S100O0 to deposit in the Parsons bank for him. and that imme- diately after the money was delivered to her it was struck and destroyed by lightning. the bank would, of course be held responsible.
 Mr Williams contended that the fact that the note and deed were drawn up in favor of Mrs Parsons individually did not go to show that her accepting both was an admission by her that she
 .,,.t,, in banking business. The greater part of the afternoon was occupied making ar guments on this point. MT ONeill compared the situation to the case of Benjamin Sedgwick vS Charles Belden, q local case. In this matter Mir Sedg- wick conducted q tailor shop as truS- tee or agent for his wife. Mir w H. liams on the other hand held that that case had not the slightest bearing on the one before the court. inasmuch as that Sedgwick was his wife's trustee or agent whereas in this case it IS as stunned that MT Parsons was neither the one nor the other to the defendant The arguments were closed by MT O'Neill stating that if Mrs Parsons was not the surviving partner in the hank. what right had she to hand over the note and deed that caused the ln- terrliDtion to the trial. to the receivers of the bank MeSSrS Chase and Eltoh. What right had she to interfere WILL the A.saoney of the depositors or the bank :,sd with it pay off old clalll,S against the partnership Of Holmes N Parsons? The court. in deciding the Doint. said the law of the state Is 1alr- 1y conclusive that a wife cannon pe come her husbands partner. 1hefe' was no evidence, so far. tending to show that there was q co-partlerSnip between the defendant and her nus hand or that she derived any benefit from the bank. The evidence feSarn, iur MT Hurlburt'S note and deed dlu tend to show that she was conducting the bank at the time she LOOK tneui OH her own responsibility. but It dld ho' show that there had been co-partner- shin between her and her husband. he evidence. excepting its bearing upo,i the last mentioned point. was eNcluuea. The defendant took an eNceptloh .o this part of the ruling on the Sfoulius that if showed on defendants part all intention to right whatever "roiiE may have been done in her name. Sie had no legal right to the property 1n inc bank: that is she shCuld not have handed over MT Hurlburt's note ana deed to the receivers of the bank. DuI this was d mistake. her counsel claimed on Il CT part, committed WILL an honest intention The ruling. on the whole. caused the defense to feel elated.
 The iurv was then recalled and the examination of MT Hurlburt was re SuIned.
 What was the note and deed given to Mrs Parsons for? he was asked Ine ouestion was objected to and eNcludeo This disposed of MT Huriburt, ane William Merriman was called Ht cold he is the defendants son-in-laW cpd this was followed by a lot or eVl donca regarding the Parsons fam1l! Witness. was administrator on MT Tar sane.Ss estate. few days after th' Iatter's death he went to the bahk all, fold Mrs Parsons that he had feuIl, its affairs in a bad state. Court ao iourned at this point
 Before resuming business thls nloi3i ing Judge Wheeler took up the ques ton relating to Mrs farsohs repula tion for wealth. This matter came III -osterday when Robert Lewis. loca renreSpntative for New 1ork com ,nercial publica tion,+ was asked on tht stand if Mrs Parsons had not told mn tbat tha defendant was wealthy. h' .euestion was objected to and rullns deeerred. Ii was claimed by the plain tiff in his argument that It Was .pe cause it was on account of Mrs Par sons-s general reputation that she wa wealthy and because the firm Of U. ; Parsons X Co was so rated in Brad streets that he deposited his money II tne Parsons bank. The defens' claimed that MES Parsons's reputation Of being wealthy has nothing to d' with the case at all. The contentioi so far was to connect Mrs Parsons with the case and so far also she sue cessfully resisted these efforts. Th' technicalities were finely and one ma. say delightfully."- drawn. Such ehair splitting was never before witnessed in the local superior court room. Th ..-s fact that she did give her husband th' right to use her name in his bankin. affairs was not, her counsel claimed fhe formation of co-partnership be tween them: was not in fact. the eri gazing of him as her agent 1t wa net as q surviving partner. nor was on her own responsibility that she con timed the b1isiness after her husband' denth but as atlministratrix, fT sii ls we'll is MT Aferriman were appoint
 <<s ffa.t of4f,.<14fkr tho i'll f