Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-28

probate court and her duty was to set tie up the affairs of her deceased hus band and make settlement with that court not hand them over to the su- perior court. But she knew she was a partner in the bank, that was why she acted so. An hour and ten min- utes were consumed in making the ar guments The court decided to admit the questions. but Mrs Parsons was still not connected with the bank. The. jury was then called in. The room was more crowded than it was yes terday. and there were old as well as young lawyers present. Rumor of the hair splitting technicalities had reached them and drawn them thither. MT Merriman took the stand and ob- jections began to pile up immediately. Witness could not recall if he had said anything to defendant about MT Hurl- burt's note and mortgage deed. He did not advise Mrs Parsons to sell the assets of the bank after he had found and reported to her it was ill q bad state. This was objected to. but was allowed. A few days later. however, he told Mrs Parsons that certain par ties would like to buy the bank. He could not recall what she said: thought she made no reply. He advised her to make an investigation of the banks affairs. He had not been appointed administrator then. An investigation of the bank was made, but witness did not make reports as to progress to Mrs Parsons. He said as little as pos sible to her about it. About a week after MT Parsonss death witness ad- viSed Mrs Parsons to withdraw her balance from the Dime Savings bank and q part of it was so wlthdraWns Eventually it was all taken out. but witness could not say how long that was He knew Mrs ParSonS'S reputa- ton financially and said it was that she Was d woman of means. This was indefinite. Mr O'Neill. his QueStOner, thought. It may mean that she was worth millions and it may mean that she was merely well off. He thought finally that she was worth S10O,otEl. Under rosS-cXamination witness aid he never consulted Mrs Parsons as to continuing the banking business after her husbands death. So far as he knew the subject was never discussed
 Witness was asked by the court ii he could recall anything he did in con sequence of d conversation with Mrs Parsons. and replied he could not re- call any such act.
 Contractor Hurlburt was recalled and stated that the deed he gave to Mrs Parsons was to cover an over draft on his account This was to show that she transacted business as the surviving member of G. $. Par sons X Co. MT Hurlburt got himself into a fix with the court and MT Will Hams over the financial reputation of Mir Parsons between July '96 and Oc- tober '9S. MT Hurlburt was an hour on the stand.
 The plaintiffs counsel now proceed red to get at what they failed in doing yesterday: that is. who circulated the yellow slips calling attention to the formation of the partnership of G. <. Parsons X Go. and Peter F. Malone. who printed them. was recalled. MT Malone testified to the slips. Then Mr Williams began to block further teSti- mony with objections. but the witness was allowed to proceed. He stated that 800 of the slips were printed for Mr Parsons in July. '9S. As to Mrs Parsons's financial reputation Mir Ma lone got himself into the same fix as MT Hurlburt did. MT Ste IHc1n came next. He said the money deposited in the bank by the plaintiff was duly cred ited to him. but as to the amount or interest it earned between July, 9O and October. '9S. he could not say. He could not say if it was loaned with other peoples money. This was to show that Mrs Parsons derived bene- fit from the money deposited by plain tiff. it having been contended all through the case that she did not. Ob- lection was made and sustained on the ground that the benefit in question was not the benefit referred to in the statutes. Witness heard MT Parsons say to MT Lewis. the agent for Bradstreets. that Mrs Parsons Was of the firm of Brown & Parsons. This was said q short time after the books of G. l.. Parsons X Co were opened.
 He did not receive any orders from Mrs Parsons or any one else about dis continuing the business until the re- ceivers were appointed. The assets 1 carried over from G. s. Parsons to G ! s. Parsons x Co amounted to S16S,- 1 T96.O7, besides an equity in real estate l at 51 Church street. The liabilities i were S135. .692. H. On the day of Nil | Parsons's death. October Ii. the as | sets were $1S5.75S.13 and the liabilities | SIP. .5S5.1O. showing difference of
 S13.172.43. MT Williams objected tc | witness testifying as to the condition
 of the bank on November ?, the day | before the receivR.s were appointed | MT O'Neill claimed it to- be showr l that Mrs Parsons took possession o1 1 the assets and converted them to hel own use. The objection was sus | tained.
 | Upon resuming this afternoon, aftel
 a recess for lunch, the court announced I that he wished to reduce the width O l his ruling which excluded evidence a.
 to the assets of the bank on the da!
 before the receivers were appointed. I A paper was then identified by. th' | witness as having been signed by NJ
 Parsons. It was then laid aside. Th'
 balance due the plaintiff on Octobe II, 1898. was $1,306.36 This was tit
 day of MT Parsons's death.
 'sWhat became of the assets that aD peared on the books on November 2?' | witness was asked. Objected to. Thi
 was allowed to pass for the present I and this quesion was asked: "Wha I became of the money deposited in tn I bank up to the day of Mir Parson' death, which amounted to $44 4,359.97? :? Objected to. Excluded.
 l s"sCan you tell what became of tn l money deposjted by the plaintiffs afte
 October II. s9S?" Objected to. It wa I allowed Witness answered it wa
 paid out in the regular course of busi 1 ness. -. t.s | s.yyhat hapDened the assets in ,tb