Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-27
PARSONS'S BANK.
Trial of this Now Famous Case
 Commenced To-Day.
MRS G.S. PARSoNs'S DEPOSITION


 Stedman and Ex-Mayor Barlow, One of the Plaintiffs in the Case-Many Objections Raised By Mrs Parsons
 Counsel, Some of Which Were Sus- tained by the Court The case of the Barlow Bros com pany against Mrs Eliza J. Parsons, or the Parsons bank case, as it is popu, iaflJ called, began in the superior court to-day at 9:30 o'clock before Judge George W. Wheeler and a iury. lie court room was not crowded, vet lhere were few seats vacant. Quite number Of lawyers were present. be- sides many well known men and old cltlzens, who must have known the Parsons banking house when it was in us 1nfancy and saw it grow up as Cne or the most reliable financial houses III the Naugatuck valley: and whea the crash came they were more sur prlsed than anyone else. The plaintiff was represented by O'NeiI and Burpco and the defendant by Williams of Der by and John r. Kellogg of this city. The jury bench having been filled. MT Williams addressed the court. arguing
 
 from Wolcott and AIiddlebury on the grounds of the proximity of these towns to this city and that, therefore. 1n all probability, the jurors from the above places must have heard and seen more or less discussion of the case either by their neighbors in the city when they came here or il the papers. Also that he would challenge all of the jurors. The jurors from the towns mentioned were thereupOn eX- cused and the tedious process of chal- lenglng then began. Each jurO. was asked these questions: Do you know the Parsons banking house? Did you have any business transactions there? Have you read of this case in the pa pers? If so. have you formed an opin- ion on the matter? If you have not. do you think you could try this case fairly and honestly? Have you any relative or friend who did business with the Parsons bank. or had any deposits there? The following answered to the satisfaction of both sides to the case and of the court and were ac- cepted as jurors in the following order: Elmer Brooks. George Spra que, Prospect: Joel F. Webster. Naugatuck: Edward Gruber Beacon Falls: George
  Henry W. Coe. Frank B. Forbes. East Haven; Marshall Fowler. William Dickinson Meriden: c. S~iIIiliette, Cheshire and George B. Russell South bury. . z The contents of the papers in the case were then given to the jury. These were to the effect that the plain tiff and the defendant did business to- Gether the latter. as partner iG the corporation of G. S. Parsons & Go. and while she was carrying on the business of a banker after her husbands death and as his successor. Plaintiff had certain deposits in the custody of inc defendant. A demand was made for these deposits by the plaintiff and was refused. Damages for $7.0O0 was, therefore claimed. The defense was substantially general denial. Mis- Parsons's deposition, which was taken last week. was then read. It was to the effect that she and fer husband were married in 1858. and that they resided together constantly until death severed the union in October II, 1S3S. Up to July, '96, the bank was known as Holmes & Parsons. On and after that month the concern was managed by G. s. Parsons x Co., .,.
 y husband to use your name in his bank ing business?" she was asked ill her deposition. and she answered: ''Yes; I suppose I did.'' -~ -E
 "What did he say to you before he asked you that?"
 'sI don't recall. I suppose he said to me: Can I use your name in the busi- ness? and I replied: T would rather you would not. if it would involve my property And he said it would not
 Did you draw checks on the bank of G. s. Parsons x Coz"
 q don't recall. My check book will show if I did. I have no recollection that I did"
 "Who managed your affairs?"
 ..EIy husband did"
 Ibid you sign a bond with youI husband for the protection of the Holmes heirs from Mir Parsons's lia bility?''
 '.Not that I remember
 The deposition went on to say thai defendant did not see a certain adver tisement in the papers announcing tbe dissolution of the partnership of Holmes X Parsons. but she was told about it by her son-in-law, William Merriman.
 Ou signed the petltlOn Tor recelv IT. for the bank?''
 'sMr Merriman brought me a paper saying Judge Cole gave it to him te get me to sign it and signed it. That was all"
 This ended the deposition and the petition for a receiver was taken up Mir Williams objected. but it was ad mitted to show that Mir Merriman. ad ninistrator of MT Parsons's estate continued the banking business to pro tect the depositors of the bank. After this Henry T. Stedman, teller of tis c. s. Parsons bank, was then sworn He testified to the early history of tn bank in question. He corroborated the portions of Mrs Parsons's deposition regarding the changes in the corpora ~fion also that she did not have an 2 2 count with Holmes X Parsons. but q d with G. s. Parsons X Go. Quite 2 number of checks were then intro; duced. Some of them were drawn IT by MrH Parsons and some by MT Par sons The.smost of them, were draws up thus: "E3iza q. Parscas. by e. s Paxsous,D and Eaixa Parsqns by C.