451 



Q. That was included in there, also. 



A. I think so; only one lot, if I remember right, was included in 

 that complaint. 



Q. Give us the date, as near as you can recollect now, of the com- 

 mencement of that section ? 



A. I think it was in 1886. 



Q. Who was your attorney in that matter ? 



A. Beckwith, Barnard & Wheeler, Plattsburgh. 



Q. Afterwards didn't you discharge those attorneys and substitute 

 others ? 



A. No, sir. 



Q. Did you afterwards substitute other attorneys there ? 



A. Yes, sir. 



Q. Who did you you substitute ? 



A Royal Corbin, Plattsburgh, 



Q. Was also Frank E. Smith in that case ? 



A. He was associated. 



Q. He resides at Plattsburgh ? 



' A. No, sir; New York. 



Q. Did he reside at one time in Plattsburgh ? 



A. Ten or fifteen years ago; I guess he has made it hiB home prin- 

 cipally in New York the last ten or fifteen years. 



Q. Is he not a member of the firm of Smith, Weed & Kellogg ? 



A. No, sir; Smith, Weed & Conway. 

 ' Q. Wasn't he a member of that firm at one time ? 



A. He is now, that is, young Weed. 



Q. And this same man, Smith ? 



A. Frank E. Smith. 



Q. He appeared upon the trial of that case for you ? 



A. Upon every trial. 



Q. When was it submitted, the last date of submission to the 

 referee ? 



A. I think just before the first of January, two or three days. 



Q, Upon the trial the question of possession came up, did there 

 not? • 



A. The last trial ? 



Q. Yes? 



A. No, sir. 



Q. Wasn't the question of occupancy? 



A. On the last trial? 



Q. Yes? 



A. No, sir. 



