Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/291

276 FJiDEEAIi REPORTER. �q[uestions of Mr. Grouse and Mr. Brown only in the presence of said attorneys, •(vas competent, H. V. Cadwell assenting to the disclosure, and the fact show- ing the co-operation of the attorneys representing the bank and of the debtors in seeuring the preference. ' �(5) The fact that McCartin & Williams had become attorneys for the debt- ors at the time of the visits of Mr. Brown and Mr. Grouse was competent, for the reasons before given. �(6) The fact that H. V. Cadwell told Mr. Brown and Mr. Grouse that Mc- Cartin & "Williams advised him not to talk about his matters with Mr. Brown and Mr. Grouse is competent, for the reasons stated as to objection 4. �(7) Evidence as to the desire of H. V. Cadwell respecting the Van Schaick claim, and as to what Van Schaick told him, was incompetent. �(8) and (9) These objections are well taken. �(10) This objection is well taken. �(11) The evidence as to the inquiries made by Mr. Grouse of H. V. Cadwell and Gadwell's answer, and as to his refusai to make a statement respecting his aflairs, was competent, as showing the iufent of the debtors. �(12) and (13) The same ruling applies to Gadwell's statement as to whether he had been sued, and to his declining to answer as to his having paid the $600 note, and to his declining again when Mr. Williams advised him not to answer. �(14) Evidence as to what McCartin said about not allowing any judgments of any amount to be taken against the Cadwells, and as to the conversation with Williams about banlcruptcy, and as to what the attorneys said about suits against the Cadwells, was competent, for the reasons before stated. If it was desired to inquire what the attorneys said in denying knowledge of any suits, that could, and should, have been asked on cross-examination. �(15) Mr. Crouse's testiraony as to what Cadwell said about being advised by the attorneys to answer only in their presence, was incompetent to prove the fact of such advice being hearsay. The fact that Cadwell declined to answer exoept in their presence was competent. �(16) and (17) The testimony as to what Williams said at Utica, after the adjudication, about a compromise, was incompetent; and so was the other tes- timony as to an ofEer of compromise. �(18) and (19) This testimony ought to be excluded. �(20) and (21) This evidence was competent. The books could have been called for by the defendant, if desired. �(22) This evidence was competent. �(23) Evidence as to what Cadwell saw was competent, for the reasons stated in respect to objection 11. �(24) This evidence was competent, being of the same character as that covered by objection 14. �(25) So much of this evidence as states the understanding of the witness is incompetent. What was said would have been competent. The rest of the answer was unobjectionable. �(26) This evidence, at folio 345, was incompetent. That at folio- 306 was competent. �The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs. ��� �