Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-01

Barlow's testimony, which showed that
 he deposited his money ill the bank un-
 der the impression that Mrs Parsons
 was her husbands co-partner, that she
 was, in fact. the financial mainstay oi
 the bank. But MT Williams claimed
 Mrs Parsons could not become her
 husbands partner. The law prohibits
 It and the law must be upheld. He claimed that the evidence showed she derived no benefit from the bank what soever. Regarding her knowledge or
 lack Of Knowledge of what was going
 on at the bank after her husbands death he claimed the evidence showed
 she knew absolutely nothing. Mr Williams here launched into a dramat- 1c peroration on the reputation. integ- rity and honesty of MT Parsons up to the time Of his death. Then after his death some person without authority opened the doors of the bank and con- tinued it's business. ConfeSsediy it was Mir Stedman. The plaintiff claims says she gave no orders about contin- uing the business, and she was not seen in the bank. What did she know
 about the banking business? Moth ing. and l say without fear Of cOntra- dictiCn that it was Mir SteGman and 3Ir Merriman who continued this bank ing business after Mir Parsons's death. Mir Stedman believed. as all of the de poSitors believed. that the bank was as sound as the rocks of Gibraltar. as sound and honest as tic integrity Of Air Parsons during his life. You have heard ii said on the stand he was worth from $50.GG0 to S1O0.00G. Mr Williams spoke for almost two hours.
 Mir Kellogg giving to him his time for making his address.
 The closing argument was made by ! Colonel Burpee. The situation as it presented itself to Colonel Burpee was quite simple. The superior court,
 Judge Thayer. ruled last spring. that several persons can carry on business together. yet they need not necessarily be partners In '96 Mir Parsons was face to face with ruin and he cast about for someone to help him anU | finding none he naturally turned to-
 ward his wife to keep him af1oat. She objected at first to involve her prop erty in his affairs, but later she con- sented She knew then what she was 1 doing. because. you see, she at hrSt declined She was no fool. Every | body knew that she knew what she 1 had done. yet she was afraid Of her property but her husband overcame her
 scruples and we see the result. He | knew he was forcing ruin; probably
 she did not We don't know, but this
 we do know. the people put their mon
 ey in that bank because they knew
 Mrs Parsons was behind ii. When 1 MT Melriman told her Of the adver-
 tisements in the paper she knew what
 she had done She knew her proper
 ty was needed to keep her husband
 afioat Yet she did not say word of
 warning to the public. She did not
 say she was sorry, yet she disllked
 the idea of seeing her name in the pa perS It is claimed by the other Slde 1 that she derived no benefit from the lbank- The evidence shows that pflor ito the organization of G. $. Parsons X Co she did not have any account ln
 the bank. but that after that she did
 She paid her bills with the people s
 money, as the evidence shows. Con:
 ditions changed with the death of MT Parsons. Mrs Parsons supposed that she had been her husbands partner. because he had used her money. NIT Merriman was positive that he gave no orders regarding the bank. Ills memory is defective in that point. l
 do not suppose that Mrs Parsons gave the slightest attention to business. She was net accustomed to it. but. deprived
 of her husband. whom should she look
 tG but to Mir Merriman, yet Mrs Par
 sons must have known. and she dld
 know. that her SOn-in-law was taking
 care of the business. MT Merrlrlan
 himself says she must have known he
 was in charge. She knew the bank
 was in a bad state. Mir A1erriman
 told her so. but what did she do? noth
 ing. She did not even express sur
 prise. She told Mir Merriman to gt
 ahead and do the best he could. Nher the papers for receiver were presented to her. why did she not say. w hy my son. why should I sign it? Wha do know about it?' No, she sIaplN
 signed it because she depended upoI 1. Mir Merrman: because she knew sht , was g partner. The evil deeds we i.' live after us. and when she gave he property to her husband she knew what she was doing. That cid man q the sea was with her on November $ 1898. just as he was ca July 7. lSJd Sbe made herself responsible then ant she found herself responsible for tha t decd of July 2. 1886 on November J ? 1898. I aLl sorry for this condition o t things coming upon her in her old age 5 very sorry. indeed. for she is lad, whom 1 much admire.
 l Colonel Burpee closed with reviey I of the technicalities of the case.
 At 2:40 the court began to addres the jury. Passing over the complain :, in the case. be said that according t > the law Mrs Parsons could not becom t the partner in business of her hushano e having not availed herself of the priv D ilegc of the law Of 1877, she being mai 0 ried prior to that date. The object O e the law of 1877 was to give marie C woman larger scope over her propert! e to promote the comfort and peace 0 : the domestic hearth. Therefore, Ml ]! Parsons could not be held responslDl q for any contract made by G. >. Pal Il sons. x Go. but Mir Parsons could D I his wife's agent and, as such, recover e could be had from her. The court = never. heard of q husband and vii S married prior to 1877 engaging ill a e Il Ipartnership. He knew of no eyidenc e by which the jury could find for tn I plaintiff. that gave the defendant th ' benefit required by the statutes accrt :. ing from the personal deposits by tn ' plaintiff.
 1t He said that tho defendant was nc