. 8 irnnnnm. nnronrnn.
he decreed`, andthat evidence. on that subject would not then be proper,
· and was omitted on that account., V .
That »Bu_rton’s attention was called to the charge against him on ac·
count Lof this loan is fully apparentxfrom these affidavits, as well as from
his former testimony. f Besides; that, this loan was specifically set out in
thebill as aground of liability on his part on account of its unlawful
character, with others, on the same ground. His answer to these alle-
gations was thatrnever, so far as he knew,and never with his consent,
was the, limitation as to the sum tobe loaned to any person or corpora-
` tion allowed to be violated by the bank or the directors of the bank.
The e‘ffect’of¥this part of the answer, as evidence of any fact, is fully
met by other instances in which the limitation was violated by transac-
tions in which he took part, and of which,.by-his own testimony, he.
had¤full—knowledge. Of this class isthecase where D. Noyes Burton
. had, according tohis testimony., used $20,000 borrowed by Ollide _&
Schmidt, D. Noyes Burton, and Edward A. Sowles, and becamerthe
borrower of that amount atithis bank, on paper indorsed by him and
Sowlestothat amount, to make good what was so used. Also ofthis
class was the loan in May, -188B,_to the Glens Falls Shirt Company of
over $16,000 on paper, indorsedwby himself and Edward A. Sowles.
And Albert, Sowles testifies to his consent to a loan to him of $10,000,
A when he wasalready indebted to a large amount. This latter is, however,
disputed by·B-urton. He was notrcharged for losses on account of these
loans, for they were either shown ‘to have been paidg, or not shown to
haveresultedin loss; .His answer may have been morally true in this
respect, for he may not have known that these things were a violation
of any law., If so, thesame may be true as to the loan to Edward A,
Sowles in question. The fact that D. Noyes Burton found no trace of-
_ the loan among the assets ofthe bank would have no direct bearing upon
` the question whether his father assented to it or not, even if he made
that examination after the loan was made. But his father testified that
r the negotiation for the 100 shares of stock was had in December, 1879,
when he purchased 10 shares of Edward A. Sowles for the purpose of
becoming. eligible as director in contemplation of the election then ap~
proaching. An examination shortly after that would probably have
been prior to the loan. Neither would the fact that he was not at St.
Albans on the eleventh of February, 1880, and did not know of the
. transactions of that day as they were taking place, if shown by testi-
mony of the outgoing director interviewed, have any immediate bearing
upon the question of his assent.~ That he knew of a proposed purchase
of the stock before that day is shown by his own testimony, given as of
his own knowledge, that it was advised by the bank examiner. ,
. Edward As Sowles is named in the motion as a witness whose testi-
mony is desired to be taken further. There is no afhdavit, or anything,
from him to show whether there is anything tm which he can testify
further than he has already testified or not. The orator is also named
in the motion as a witness whose testimony is desired, but it is not un-
derstood that anything is expected from himbut what appears from the