. wrrmns v. sowLns. 7
and Albert Sowles; that this director declined to make affidavit of these
facts, but, he believes, will testify to them if compelled; that soon after
the dispute among the directors was settled there was an arrangement be-
tween him and Edward A. Sowles and his son, D. Noyes Burton, for
the purchase of 100 shares of the stock, and that they examined the as·
sets of the bank at that time and found no trace of such a loan, but the
arrangement failed for other reasons.
Thesubstance of the affidavit of Albert Sowles is that about 190 shares
of the stock were transferred to Edward A. Sowles, February 11, 1880,
and $22,800¤taken from th_e funds of the bank shown by a cash mem· `
‘ orandum merely, and 100 shares about March 19th, and $12,350 taken
from the funds of the bank, for which unaccepted drafts of Edward A.
Sowles were given to pay for this stock; that these drafts were not en·
teredion the books of the bank, but, with the cash memorandum, were
carried to October 1, 1880, 'when new unaccepted drafts of Edward A. -
Sowles, to the amount of $37,600, were taken in place of them, and then
entered on the books of the bank; that .he has no knowledge now that
defendant Burton was informed by any one that Edward A. Sowles pro·
curedthe money from the bank to pay for the stock, or had any knowl-
_ edge of the drafts; that, so far as he knows now,—Burton had no knowl-
edge that drafts and notes to replace these drafts were given for the
money taken by Edward A. Sowles to pay for the stock; that he did not
intend to testify in any manner differently from this before, but had not
then examined into the details of the loan as he has since, and got a
little mixed in his account of it. The word "now," by which he limits
‘ his present knowledge of Burton’s information and knowledge of the loan
and drafts, was carefully interlined twice, at the time of making oath to
the affidavit, apparently; which indicates that his attention was called to
it, and that he suggested or recognized its propriety.
The substance of the afiidavitpf D. Noyes Burton is that shortly after
his father was elected director, February 11, 1880, he examined the as-
sets of the bank with his father in view of the negotiation for 100 shares
of stock with Edward A. Sowles, and found no indication that he had
taken the money of the bank to pay for stock then understood to have
been recently purchased by him. A _
Thesubstance of the affidavit of Albert P. Cross is that he was em-
ployed to attend the taking of the testimony in behalf of Burton; that
he expected the senior counsel to be present and assist ; that but little .
was taken before December, 1886, and then he was informed that the
senior counsel could not attend, and that he must attend to it without
that assistance; that Burton stated to him his knowledge of this loan, as
stated in his affidavit; that in view of the testimony taken by the orator
he deemed thequestions asked Burton, which elicited his testimony as
to the drafts and notes and that testimony,ras being all that wasrequired
to meet the case made by the orator on this item; and that it was under-
stood between him and the orator that there were securities held by the »
orator applicable to this loan, and that there would be a reference to a
master to ascertain the amount of the loss in ease liability for it should