CASE V. SMAIili. 723 �stock, and of his answers filed in this oase, leave no other conclusion in my mind than that the interposition of Miss Small was a sham, and that I. K. Small was the real purchaser and owner of the stock. In his first examination his answers were evasive, when if the facts had been in his favor they could, and undoubtedly would, have been clear and responsive. Here is a sample : �Question. Has she (your sister) ever reimbursed you for the payment on this stock that youmade? Answer. Notentirely. No, sir. Q. Has she reimbursed you any part of the payment? 4. Yes, sir. C. How much? A. Well, Tdon't remember that. Q. When did she make any such reimbursement? A. Ithink it was in 1874, she jgave me something. C. Howmuch? 4. Itwasnotvery much ; it was a small amount. Q. Was it ten dollars ? A. More than that. Q. Tell us, as near as you caii. A. Thirty dollars or forty dollars. Q. In what inanner did she make such reimbursement to you? A. In presents. �Again : �Question. New is it not thefact thatyou bought that stock foryourself, and put it in your sister's name in order to avoid some liability ? Answer. I bought the stock at that time with her knowledge and consent, and told her of it at the time I bought it. Q. Suppose that the bauk had not f ailed, would you have transferred that stock to her, and given her the ownership of it, or would you have considered it as belonging to yourself ? A, The stock was ne ver trans- ferred at all ; it was taken f rom the broker and given to her ; it was never trans- ferred to my knowledge. Q. Did you not buy that stock for your own account, and with the intention bf speculating in it for your o vvixbeneflt ? A. I told the broker at the time that I bought that stock to put it in the name of E. M- Small. Last question repeated. A. It is possible I may have enjoyed some beneflt from that stock. �In the answer filed to the interrogatories in this case defendant Small is not so evasive, but he is by no means as candid as he might have been if the actual facts would have warranted. And now, in his answer, he admits to an ownership of one-seventh, which was in nowise hinted at in the first evidence. �In defence it is first urged that the transaction was hona fide, and that Miss Small was the real purchaser and owner of the stock. The facts are against this defence. �Next, that I. K. Small, knowing that the bank was in failing cir- cumstanees, had a right to donate the money to his sister, and with it purchase the stock and put it in her name. �This is a doubtful proposition, but conceding it, for this case, the facts will not bear out this defence. In the evidence given by Small, above quotedv'the purchase was for account of his sister, and she had reimbursed him in part of the purchase price ; and, besides, no such ��� �
