"(1) Upon the trial of the above-entitled cause to the court upon the pleadings on file, the following facts appeared in evidence, and are found by the court and made a part of the record: (2) On August 23, 1894, the United Growers Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, and located and doing business in the city of New York, sold to one J. Librovicz, of said city and state of New York, the twenty barrels of whisky described in the complaint, and gave him a receipted invoice or bill thereof, hereto annexed as Exhibit E, and delivered to him the three warehouse receipts, hereto annexed as Exhibits A, B, and C, and received from him in payment for said whisky the acceptance of said Librovicz for the agreed price and full market value of said whisky. (3) Said whisky was manufactured by the Old Colony Distilleries Company, a Connecticut corporation located in New Haven, and prior to said 23d day of August, 1894, had been stored in their distillery warehouse in New Haven. (4) On said day, the time within which the United States internal revenue tax must be paid, according to the condition of said Distilleries Company's bond, having expired, the defendant, who was then the treasurer and general manager of said company, paid said government tax; and said whisky was thereupon removed from the bonded or distillery warehouse to a public warehouse which said Distilleries Company was then conducting in the same building, in compliance with the laws of this state relating to public warehouses, where it remained until this action was commenced. (5) On said 23d day of August the defendant, acting in behalf of said Distilleries Company, at the request of the United Growers Company, who had become the owners of said whisky, filled out said warehouse receipts, Exhibits A, B, and C, stamped the same with the words 'Tax paid,' and delivered the same to said Growers Company. (6) After said warehouse receipts had been delivered by said Growers Company to said Librovicz, as stated in paragraph 2 hereof, said Librovicz indorsed the same in blank, and delivered the same to the plaintiff as part collateral security for a note of $2,000, dated August 29, 1894, which the bank on that day discounted for him, the proceeds of which he had, and no part of which has ever been paid. (7) On January 22, 1895, said Librovicz having become insolvent and having absconded, the plaintiff wrote above the indorsement of said Librovicz on said warehouse receipts the words, 'Deliver M. Zunder & Sons, or order,' and sent said certificates to said Zunder & Sons, at New Haven, with directions to withdraw said whisky from the warehouse, pay storage charges, and ship the whisky to the plaintiff, in New York. (8) Upon the receipt of said warehouse receipts and instructions, Mr. M. Zunder, of the firm of Zunder & Sons, called at said warehouse in behalf of the plaintiff, and demanded the delivery of said twenty barrels of whisky, at the same time showing the defendant the said receipts, and tendering and offering to deliver the same to him, and to pay all storage charges on said whisky. The defendant refused to deliver said whisky until he should be paid the sum of $900, which he claimed he had paid for taxes to the U. S. government on said whisky, and until he should be paid also the amount which said Librovicz agreed to pay said Growers Company on said whisky. (9) Said Librovicz never paid said acceptances to said Growers Company, and said company, after the same became due, brought suits against said Librovicz
in the city court of the city of New York, and in January, 1895, obtained judgments against him in said court for the full amount due on said acceptances. (10) Said Growers Company also brought an action against said Librovicz upon the common counts, returnable to the city court of the city of New Haven on the first Monday of December, 1894, in which action the Old Colony Distilleries Company was made garnishee, and service of a copy of the writ and complaint in said action was made upon this defendant. No appearance was entered in said action in behalf of defendant or garnishee, no bill of particulars, answer, or other pleadings were ever filed in said cause, and the said cause now appears upon the docket of said court as still pending therein. (11) Upon the trial the plaintiff called as a witness one J. J. Kennedy, the stamp deputy for the internal revenue collector at the city of New Haven, who testified in chief that August 23, 1894, the defendant called at said collector's office, and paid the government tax on the twenty barrels of whisky in question. Upon cross-examination he was asked the following question: 'Q. And as soon as the tax was paid, Mr. Waterhouse removed it, didn't he?' (referring to the removal of the whisky from the bonded warehouse to the public warehouse.) To this question counsel for the plaintiff objected, on the grounds that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and foreign to the examination in chief. The objection was sustained. The defendant's counsel duly excepted. (12) The plaintiff offered one Oscar L. Richard, its president, as a witness, who testified that the letter hereto annexed as Exhibit D was written with his knowledge and by his direction, by J. H. Rosenbaum, cashier of said bank, but now dead; and the plaintiff then offered said letter in evidence, stating that it would be shown by other witnesses that said warehouse receipts were inclosed with said letter, and sent to and received by M. Zunder & Sons with said letter. The defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of said letter, as irrelevant, immaterial, and res inter alios. The objection was overruled, and an exception duly taken to the ruling by the defendant. The plaintiff afterwards, by Allan Durand, assistant cashier of the plaintiff bank, and by M. Zunder, proved that said letter was sent to Zunder & Sons, and received by them, and that the receipts, Exhibits A, B, and C, were inclosed with the letter when so sent and received. (13) Said Richard testified in chief to the negotiations which took place between himself, as the representative of the plaintiff, and said Librovicz, concerning the loan of August 29, 1894, above referred to, and the giving of said collateral. Upon cross-examination the witness (who, it appeared, was a member of the firm of Richard & Co., doing a banking and forwarding business, which firm was a creditor of said Librovicz) was asked whether be attended a meeting of the creditors of said Librovicz in New York, which was held October 19, 1894. The witness answered in the affirmative, when he was asked by defendant's counsel the following question: 'Q. And didn't you say at that time [referring to the creditors' meeting] that Librovicz had transferred to you property to the value of more than $100,000 to secure the claim of Richard & Co. and the bank, and that if the creditors would give him an extension of three, six, nine, and twelve months, that you would turn the property all back?' To this question counsel for the plaintiff objected on the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and outside the direct examination of the witness. The objection was sustained. Counsel for the defendant duly excepted. (14) One Herman A. Curiel, president and treasurer of said Growers Company, was called as a witness by the defendant, and having testified to certain conversations had by him with said Richard relative to the arrangement between the plaintiff and said Librovicz touching the $2,000 loan, and the delivery of Exhibits A, B, and C to the plaintiff, he was asked by the defendant's counsel the following question: 'Q. Passing that, then, Mr. Curiel, was any statement made by Mr. Richard at that time with regard to the claim of either himself or the bank against Mr. Librovicz? I do not ask what it was, but I ask first whether any statement was made about it?' Plaintiff's counsel objected to the question. The court...
