_ ,6 {FEDERAL REPORTER.
.» ·,   Witters,’for‘_orator; » · ‘ . ’ T   ’
  ;Sl3ulw,P. Poland and Albert P. Oross, for defendantfBurton.
.. WHEELER, J. Since the decision, and before entry of the decree in
this cause, the defendant Burton has moved, on the affidavits of himself,
Albert Sowles, D. Noyes Burton, and Albert P. Cross, for leave to take
further testimony upon thei question of his assent to the loan of $36,000
to Edward A. Sowles, for theloss upon which a decree has been directed
to be entered charging him and Albert Sowles. '
_ There- were two boards of directors from January 13 to February 11,
1880, each claiming to be the frightful board, bothof which included
_ Albert Sowles and one other, and one of them Edward A. Sowles and
· _ ·; Burton. The stock of those notin the latter board, and some besides,
, was purchased by Edward,Ar Sowles; and paid for with the proceeds of
this loan, `to,settle the difficulty between the two boards. The orator
took the testimony of Albert,Sowles, in whichhe testified, April 12,
1886, distinguishing this loan from others not assented to by the direct-
ors, that it was approved by all the directors,—the board that went out,
- _ and the aboard that camein, February 11, 1880. He was cross-exam-
J ined by counsel for the defendant Burton at length, but was asked noth-
ing on that subject. The defendant Burton testifiedat length in his own
behalf. This loan after a while took the form of drafts and accommo-
dation notes. He testified that he had no knowledge of these drafts or
notes until shortly before the bank failed, but did not testify about his
knowledge of the original loan. Edward A. Sowles testified that it was
. _understood that he should have a loan of $36,000 from the bank in or-
der to pay for the stock, and that the old board of directors approved of .
the loan by taking the avails of it. - Counsel for Burton were present,
but did not cross-examine him. ~
~ , The substance of the affidavits of Burton, in addition to what his tes-
timony was, is that his principal counsel, on whom he most relied, w-as
not present at the taking of the testimony, and that the counsel who was
present for him was not familiar with the details of the case; that he had
_ no knowledge of this original loan, but supposed that Edward A. Sowles
` purchased the sto k with his own means; that he was not at St. Albans
on February 11, l:880, and did not know what was done there on that
day; that he was informed afterwards that the difficulty was settled by
the purchase, by Edward A. Sowles,'of` the stock of three of the persons
claiming to be directors who had got out of the way; that he does not
recollect that he was informed that he was appointed a director on that
· day, but has always supposed, that he held the office during that year
by the election by the stockholders in January; that he has been told by
lone of the retiring directors that; he was not at St. Albans on that day,
and that this director did not think that he knew anything at that time
about the transactions which took place on that day there; that ‘the re-
tiring directors refused to resign until they had the money for their stock,
and it was taken from the bank and paid to them, and a bond of indem-
nity to them was required by them, and taken from Edward A. Sowles