Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Walker v. Brungard et al. tating and his manner throughout, induced the witness to believe that the answers were prepared for him, and that he was not fully aware of their import, which made the witness hesitate about certifying and sealing up the deposition.

E. D. Downs states, that he was clerk of the circuit court of Warren county from May, 1839, to December, 1842; that up to that time, all James Glass paid on a judgment in favor of Brungard, which was assigned by him to Wilcox, Anderson & Co., was $4700; Brungard made the assignment in May, 1839, at which time the whole amount of the judgment could have been made of Glass; the judgment was for $11,322, and was stayed by Wilcox, Anderson & Co., in May, 1839; that Brungard paid large amounts of costs and judgments against him on account of Walker, which affected Brungard's pecuniary condition.

Dr. James Hogan proves, that in October, 1839, Brungard published in the “Sentinel” his intention to leave the state in March next, (1840,) and called upon persons holding his indorsements to come forward and propose some arrangements.

W. H. Benton states, that Brungard submitted a proposal to the Railroad Bank, of which he was president, offering the plantation and brick house to the bank, in payment of certain indorsement liabilities of his for Walker, being about $37,000, provided they would also release his individual obligations as drawer, and pay him $2700 in cash, which proposition Walker, by letter, remonstrated against; that John F. Walker held a confidential station in the bank; was a man of probity and honor, and would not plead non-age to a just debt; and was a man of discretion to whom a trust fund might well be confided.

W. S. Bodley states, that he has known Thomas F. Walker since he came to Vicksburg ; so far as he knows, he has been an industrious, good man; lives humbly and is apparently dependent on his son John; that he was a director of the Railroad Bank, and since 1840, an assignee; and John F. Walker has been diligent and faithful, and bears an upright character.

Thomas E. Robins states, that he has known Thomas F. Walker, and his character as a merchant was good; that he has allowed Thomas F. Walker to travel on the road several times

Walker v. Brungard et al.

[ocr errors]

free of charge to attend the chancery court, because he was unable to pay for it.

W. R. Bay testifies, that John F. Walker is clerk in the bank; that he is one of his sureties; he thinks him incapable of pleading non-age to a just debt; thinks if any body can be, he can be trusted; that he is honest, temperate, industrious, faithful to his trust, attentive to his duties.

J. W. Walker states, that in his opinion, while he resided in Vicksburg, W. R. Lewis was an honest man and a respectable one; that he went his surety for $18,000; had seen nothing in him since to make him question his integrity, and thinks him a fit person to have charge of a trust fund.

M. C. Folkes states, that John F. Walker was the surety for Thomas F. Walker to S. & M. C. Folkes upon the note on which John F. Walker pleaded infancy; he does not know upon what other terms or conditions John F. Walker signed the note; John F. Walker's character is good, and he does not believe he would plead infancy to avoid a debt of his own.

Henry Poindexter states, that in the year 1837, he rented of Walker the brick store; paid him $500 for it, which Walker paid to Huntington; Brungard had nothing to do with the rent, payment, or receipt; that Tate and Poindexter bought a lot of goods of Walker, and gave their notes, indorsed by Samuel Anderson and others.

William Laughlin states, that he has known John F. Walker intimately for years; thinks highly of him; considers him incapable of pleading non-age, and worthy to be trustee.

A. B. Reading testifies to Thomas F. Walker's good character, and his being his indorser, and Walker's giving up all he had to secure Brungard; and also to John F. Walker's character.

W. A. Lake testifies to Thomas F. Walker's good character.
Thomas W. Banks testifies to W. R. Lewis's good character.

W. V. Davenport does the same, and also to his competency to manage a trust fund.

W. R. Lewis's deposition is again taken; he testifies, that at his instance Brungard became indorser for Walker, for which . he was to receive $10,000 in dry goods; that the sale of the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Walker v. Brungard et al. brick house under the deed of trust was made by the consent of all parties; competition was not desired; the property was to be bought in; that Brungard, to the best of his knowledge, had notes, &c., of Walker's in his possession, which might have been collected by the time the brick house was sold; that he (witness) was auctioneer when the brick house was sold under the deed of trust; that at the second sale under the deed of trust, all parties were agreed, but the reason that Walker did not wish the trustees to sign the deed was, that Brungard, up. to that time, had not fulfilled his promise to put the brick house and plantation in the Union Bank; that he himself was willing to have signed the deed at the second sale, or any other instrument on which both the parties were agreed; that he believes there was some understanding between Walker and Brungard, that the two houses in Springfield should be bought in, in the name of some of Walker's family, which, at the sale, (the second one,) Brungard refused to carry out; that Brungard had not much business of his own to attend to; that the notes and accounts of T. F. Walker were never in his (witness's) possession; but were handed immediately by T. F. Walker to Brúngard; that Brungard often spoke of hoping to be able to save something out of the trust property to settle on Mrs. Walker; that by mistake he had not answered these interrogatories earlier; that about the time Walker bought the real estate from Folkes, he (witness) was a partner of Brungard, who offered to indorse his paper, if he at the resale by Walker should buy any thing; he did buy at the resale, but Brungard did not indorse for him; that Brungard was a partner of Brookie's in Arkansas, and lost by his connection with him there; that in his opinion Brungard's ruin was not caused by his indorsements for Walker, as Brungard never told him so, and from the amount of accounts, &c., which Brungard had, he supposes he could not be much in advance to the estate; that the sale of February, 1839, was decidedly not a bonâ fide sale to Brungard, the property was to be bought in; that he gave Brungard a memorandum of the numbers and amount, which was about $700; as there was no competition, which was as they had it arranged; that Walker's purchase from Folkes was the cause of Walker's ruin.

Walker v. Brungard et al. [The magistrate here certifies, that these answers, with the questions, were brought to him already prepared, to which he expressed his disapprobation, when Brungard waived all objection on that account.]

On cross-examination, he states, that he cannot swear how much or what amount of the debts and accounts of Walker in Brungard's hands were good, or might have been collected. In answer to a cross-interrogatory, as to whether the $10,000 worth of goods (the bonus) were delivered to Brungard, or whether he was in Mississippi at the time, he says he cannot say; he has seen Brungard's receipt for nine thousand and odd dollars' worth of the goods. The cross-interrogatories and answers are principally irrelevant; he says, in conclusion, that since his last return to Vicksburg, after repeated and protracted absence, he is and has been the guest of Mr. Walker, where he has been treated kindly; how long he will stay, he does not know.

Edward R. Warren's deposition explains the reason why W. R. Lewis's deposition was not taken at the first before him.

Edward Yager testifies, that he was present when the property of John Salmon, bought of Brungard, was sold in June, 1840, by A. Burwell, trustee; that Salmon stated he would pay all he owed on it, if a good title could be made him; that the witness bid it off for Salmon, and Salmon failing to comply Burwell, as trustee, resold it, and it was bought by J. H. Martin; that Brungard and Walker were present at the sale; Walker said the title to the property was bad, and Brungard struck him, and Walker did not retaliate.

Samuel W. Brown states, that he is tax collector of Vicksburg. That Walker's real estate for the year 1836 was assessed at $18,500; for the year 1839 at $32,600; the brick store for the year 1841 was assessed at $3000; for the year 1842 at $5000; but afterwards reduced by the mayor and council to $3500; that George Brungard and family, March 1843, occupied the brick store; that part of the lots conveyed in the deed of trust had been surrendered to him for sale for the taxes of Thomas F. Walker, had been bid in by Thomas F. Walker in the name of John F. Walker, the trustee.

Walker v. Brungard et al. The record of the proceedings in the state of Louisiana in the case of Brungard against Anderson et al., and of the appeal to the supreme court, and also of the suit against Millikin, Brungard's surety in the attachment, are filed in the papers. These records show that the suit of Brungard against Anderson, was dismissed in the court below in June, 1940; the decision affirmed in Dec. 1840, and the cross-suit against Millikin for damages dismissed at the same time.

The deed of trust given by Thomas F. Walker to William Harvey for the benefit of Wilcox and Fearn, dated June 1, 1837, on the brick house to secure $12,500 of Walker's note, indorsed by Brungard, was assigned by the cestui que use to Brungard.

There is also a record of a suit of Thomas F. Walker use of Brungard against Tate and others, on one of the notes which Brungard gave up, which exhibits judgment in 1840 and return of nulla bona.

Copies of executions against Thomas F. Walker on forfeited forthcoming bonds as surety for motion, older than the original deed of trust for about $3000, under which the plantation was sold, are also filed.

E. D. Downs proves, that when the brick house was offered for sale, under the deed of trust, Brungard urged him to bid for it and others also.

There is also a record of the proceedings, in which John F. Walker pleaded his infancy to obtain his discharge from a judgment against him as indorser for his father.

W. C. Smedes proves, that most of the property conveyed by Walker to Brungard was previously heavily incumbered ; that unincumbered was of but little value; the brick house was worth about $2500, the plantation about $2000; that Samuel Anderson in 1839 was insolvent; and the other parties to the notes surrendered up by Brungard reputed to be so; that T. F. Walker was in possession of the plantation, and Brungard of the brick house; who was in possession of the other property he did. not know; that he has been the counsel of Walker and Brungard, and of Brungard during all their transactions.

Exhibit M to Brungard's answer is made part of his deposi

« AnteriorContinuar »