Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-30
THE BANK CASE.
Testimony Offered and Pulled to
 Pieces by Attorneys. @
LATE G. s. PARSONS'S WEALTH

A Subject Upon Which There Seems
 to Be 2 Wide Difference of Opinion
 Several Witnesses Gave Evidence
 for the Defendant To-day--W. B.
 Merriman Recalled to the Stand
 for the Third Time-Judgc Wheel
 CTS Rulings.
 The Parsons case was at a staudstill Tor while at press hour "Wednesday afternoon. Challes Holmes was on the. stand ard tho lawyers were in q |ra-gie over admitting evidence re- ;t1rai;ig a bond which the defendant an'l her husband are alleged to have si-nc'! on the da:- of the formation Of the firm Of q. s Parsons & Co. This pom: i; is claimed was to protect the te:':s of Mir ParsonS'S former partner Israel Holmes. The bond in quest lon Tas not allowed as evidence and the witness resumed. He stated that there was no written transfer of the assets of the Holmes C Parsons bank from him as; cNecutor of his fathers will to Mr ard Mrs Parscns. All bis deal 1nCS were with Mir Parsons.
 Hcbolt Lewis was recalled. His ev- iGence vas to tho effect that NIr Par sons made to him formal statement that the bulk of the property of c. S. Parsons X Co belonged to his wife. and that this statement appeared in figures in Bradstreets financial jour- nal
 Bertrand C. Pi'-n q l0o'-'-~0->~-. = the American office recognized the fr0a int of 1,n EaI ;,, the newspapers regarding the forma- tion of G. s. Parsons X Co. H. S. Chase testified that the financial rep utatiOn of Mir Parsons was that he was a responsible party and that he had sufficient means to meet any obligation he would enter into, but was not wealthy.
 The plaintiff was put on again. He said that few days followino the n'- lication of the notice of the formation of the firm of G. s. Parsons X Co h' had conversation With Mir Parsons. in which the latter said that Mrs To" sons was his partner in the firm and thnt the financial support of the bank was such that he. witness. would be safe in keeping his money at that bank. It was on account of Mrs Par Sons's financial reputation that he did
 
 sidered wealthy but her husband was not. Witness did hear MT Parsons's responsibility as a banker questioned before his death. It was reported he was worth about S15.0O0. He was never informed that his account at the bank was almost constantly overdrawn for year or so after MT Hclmess death. Witness was distrustful of MT Parsons's individual responsibility 2 a financier. but with good support he considered him safe.
 At this point court adjourned to Fri day morning.
 The audience at the superior cour to-day listening to the Parons case was different in some respects from what it has hitherto been. Many prominent citizen were there. also many retired business men and men identified with the industrial life of the city. AIr Barlow resumed the stand at 9:30 o'clock and i'll few min utes he was under the heavy fire of Attorney Wiilians's roSs-cxan1iua tior. His opinion of Air Parsons's financial responsibility cot him TO use so many different words tl1t his intcr- rogat5- fairly overwhelmed him with requests to define what he meant He bad implicit confidence in Mr Parsons so long as he was identified with Mrs Parsons, vet he deemed it prudent to see Erad- streets to get their rating. MT P!ke was recalled and Incidentally several rapcrs bccri:lS the signatures of Mir and Mrs Parsons and Charles Holmes and the Holmes heirs were admitted. The paper bearing the latter's sigma rurcs Informed the public that Holmes t2 Parsons had dissolved part :e.rsi.ip and that the bank would in eutrre be conducted by 6. s. Parsons X Co. The other paper corroborated this. -=izs'
 c. l. Saw.iy identified the two ad- ver;iSeinents already referred to. This closed the plaintiffs case. Tho court t,,cu stated that if his opinion the l evidence Of Robert Lewis had not con- Gecfns! Mrs Parsons with the case. This evidence iwas that he had q convcrsa 1 rI,.n with Mr Parsons regarding tho i standin. of the bank. and | f-oTn that conversation or statement | .r sent in n report to BradStreets | scency. In the mind of the court it vas not shown that this report was inc one Mr Barlow saw ill Bradstreets n: was that which MT Lewis had raafie out from Mr Parsons's statement. The court read the testimony to the iury and told them they were not to consider it. Counsel for the plaintiff on the grounds that it was fer the jury to say whether or not MT T.cwis's evidence was admissible. Christian Strobe1 the ieweler, was | Then sworn. He testified to the usual after which he said that he had always heard that Mir Parsons xas worth from s50.O0O to S100000. Mrj o'Neill tried to break down this evil lence by showing that he was tenant of the relatives of Mrs Parsons, but | failed.
 Irving H. Chase. secretary and treas | crer of the Waterbury Clock company, testified he was secretary of the Chase Rolling Mill company and direc- -nr in other manufacturing concerns. He knew MT Parsons very well, and }is reputation as q financier was first lass. He was represented to be worth rom S5OoO0 to s15.0O0 or perhaps |ie0. .D0O All this evidence was intended . rehut the plaintiffs testimony as to | Er Parsons's reputation.
 z. P. Williams. the real estate Iue.It. testified in 9 similar ,strnfn. Uns