Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-01
ATTORNEY DWELL
Made Opening Argument in
 Parsons Case To-Day.
PERTINENT QUESTIONS ASKED.

Arguments for Their Clients The Case Was Given to the Jury at 3:2O O'clock.
 Henry I. Stedm2n was the last wit ness ill the Parsons case reported in yesterdays Democrat. He had teSti-. hed that the books Of the bank showed lEat for d period the plaintiff company lad oyertlrawu their account But at the time Of MT Parsons:s death the account was not OFc'rdraWn. When It was overdrawn there were always notes ill tbe bank as collateral. Leroy lpson was called as an expert account ant. but his methods Of finding how certain figures on the banks books stood for cash did not agree with Mr 0'Ncill'S and AIr Upson went down. Nr Gpson was recalled to rebut testimony given yesterday that the bank had no balance on the date of July 9, 1896.
 The following sources and amounts Of income of Mrs Parsons were then, put in evidence by Mr Kellogg:
 Income from Plume & At
 wood Mfg Co. from July
 l. '96 to Oct l. 'aS S 29SO OO ScoVill Mfg Go. same dates. l 1,33I 90 Holmes. Booth x Haydens,
 same dates .............. 312 50 American Pin Co. Jan. '9I. to ,.. Jan. 9S IF ou Detroit Copper Go. July. '9G,
 to July. '9S. S.... 1,2OO % Brown X Parsons. July, '96.
 tc Oct. '9S. 13.101 % Check. May 16. '9S.. ..... 2.JoO % Ncte for S2.j00 from F. J.
 kingSbury ............. 2,oOO UO Cottage park. Cooke Street,
 July. '9G, to July, '9S.... 1,120 co
 Charles Holmes was put on the stand again. He produced paper which the plaintiff intended to prove was the bondalefendant signed to pro tect the Holmes heirs. Objected to by defendant and claimed by plaintiff ill rebuttaI of Mrs ParSonsS testimony that she did not recall signing such q bond. Claim allowed. The bond was drawn up by Attorney Bronson Wit ness gave it to MT Parsons. who re- turned it to him on July ?, 1896. Mrs ParsonS'S name was not on It When he gave it to Mir Parsons, but it was when Mir Parsons returned it to him.
 That was all that was required of MT IiOllnSS- aHu once iSdlLI LII ''ISN man took the stand to refute Mir Mer- riman'S testimony regarding alleged crders he gave for the conduct of the bank.
 ..NIr Merriman said. Let business continue as it is for the present. y said witness. This was few days after Mir ParSonS'S death.
 Mir Merriman. in Surrebuttal was called. and said he did not recollect giving the above orders. This clcSed the case and court adjourned to , o'clock this morning.
 The arguments were begun by MI D'Noill The greater part of his re marks were technical. but he also re- viewed the testimony very m'nutelE zTbere can be no doubt that Mrs Tar Sons was half owner in the banH. Ile' husband was her agent. The checks drawn by him in her name proves thls When she wanted money she merely sent a check to the bank and got it When she was short she merely delveC her hand into your money and mlne the money that We gave her and he1 husband to keep on deposit for us, ant used it as she wished. The momen we gave our money to the bank It De came the>joint property of her ana ne husband They lived on it: they Wef' supported by it. She paid tha GIG claims of Holmes & Parsons witi It She says she never saw the advertlSe meuts of the formation or the hrln U C S. Parsons x Co ill the papers. Sll .ays she did not wish her property U heceme involved with the banks al fafrs but did she say a word agains t.,a n,,l,,ication of the notices that sh haa become one of the company Una wa. carving on the bank? -She say sha don't know Q thing about this. bu cha, ,I.noUS have got money l tho hank and vet a few days after ne ,,,,.band,S death I go to the Dank 10 e5Go and she gives it 10 nne. A rev dnys later I 20 again for more niohes h,,t fbi, time she says she IS not II srorsiI,Ie and she does not give it, 1e sl,o has done it. She has pad. Sn na;a wbe1, she had the money. Wne che had not the money sine feIuseu nay Yet few days still later t'tiA S1 .ooo to the bank and she taxes e,i' III ,noncy. What does she do wlth IL! Sh nsrs off the old debts of Guernsey lal aI sens. What right had she 10 uo II | What right had she to my 1nolles an to yours if she was not partner 4bn hank? Why did she hand It oNe +ha receivers if she were not LII s,.,.y;vin~ partner? After MT Psu sonS.s death, on October Il. there Wi' :, ha,nnce of s1. 100 due MT Barlow. Y V that day he drew $500 and wlthin lu en TWO days following he drew out all T. :. 1,;., h,Iance except $500. Or that Ga ,,a denosited s1.1o2.29 The next da! n-.tn,,er II. he drew S1,14S. The coul interrupted Mr o'Neill at tn, 1nls olloa. po.. an.l1a discussion regarding the ahes' tions followed "a
 MT O,NeIil spoke for an hour. awelt mostly on the law pertainlng inc ease. He held that m the , rs.,ating to contracts between huspal, 4 a.,a wife fbe laws of this state are IF aheaa of those of any other state.
 NIT Williams followed. He rev,ewe nv eve the financial career of AIT .o,,sant marspn ~ =, =, ,tnersfip with her husband N williams ' iii claimed but she did not ,d ! s,l y. coed s.1.' She merely consented to the us of sher name the transactlon oI '. n .s<z.,S xS<,ff,<y Y1lfn fSa1sfnnrslip vii