The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-12-16

ALBANY, y. b. Oct 2I.-Ddnitt J.
4 SeeLrider, of Cneymaas, IN This count
! Vas convicted of In. forgery of pranu.
4 snry note, parpurthig Ia have brtii hat
by Henry Srhoonmakcr, deceased, 10
i rrfl, nrlgilbor oftbc prieoHtr, 10 thu -
,nner, for the sum If S>C0 and BEARING d,e
,rsd da, oil March 1922. sehoonm"her
led IN March last, and II did not dppra
nj SackIider had - er eAiInltcd ,acAut.
mil arter his death. The trial WAS uf great
+ raeth, and presented sumo extraordinary
! rrdenls. Eight 9itncsses, who were Ia
/ ,.piiarly acquainted With TIE maud writing
or .srhaonmdtrr, te.l@ued, that in then
/ epinion lle uotr WI, Eot -lgned 10y him.
Three witnesses, having Slight knowledge
lis AanA writing, were Produced by the
/ !,rlsouer. Nhose Opinions we're In 4aHor oil
i IL authenticity of thenote. Several spe-
i ,mrns of Schounpakcr' hand writing.
md yarious instruments signed by Inm
were also exhibited. Thu prisoner pro.
i Inrtd IN evidence an agreement, 'Puf-
porling 10 have been signed by Schoon-
maker and himself on the 9d day
If March, 1928, the date of the note, IN
which aaracmtast the note IN question was
stated 10 have been executed aud deliver
I'd In the prisoner; aud in which the con-
siGeratiap Of Of the note was lot set forth
Wae. bodies of the note aud the agreement
,,rre in the hand writing of the p isoner,
who was y very expert writer, aud tie slg
Diaie OF Hrnry Schoonmaker To the Ia
grerme0t, co,respondrd precisely with that
/ 10 the notr. The same eight witnesses,
aks proved it to be forged, aud the three
Supported its authenticity. But as thus
agreement pueported tn have been witness
"A nv the late Col John L. Van Dalf.en
4 Of Coeyman9, another question arose.--
Six Witnesses, among whom WAS Sheriff
IAN Antwerp. and all Of whom were per
& >,rtly acquainted with Col. Van Dhltscn's
b,nd writing. deposed, that in tllelr opin-
Ia, ,he signature of John Il. Van D.lt,en
u.s. mot GENUINE. Six witnesses on tn.
,,rt nf the prisoner, among whom We're the
"a, and snn-in-law OF Col. Van Dallsrn,
we're equally positive as To its authenticity.
A great variety of circumstances were
proved on both sides, but 1t is impossible IN
a say what would have beenthe result oftbe
trial, had not the prisoner in the last stage
If the cause ensured his conviction, by Il
bold attempt 10 impose upon the court md
infy. After the District Attorney hid
closed the argument of the cause, and al
fer Judge Ducr had risen to charge the
Jury. the prisoner stated that he had u
4 riltcd to direct his counsel to call II. 4. /
Van Der Zee, ESQ. of Cocymans, Who MAS
then in Court, and hy whom h" .eoa'd
proyr that in July 1922, an action, which
Ind since abaied ny the death of Schoon
maker, was Depending before him ara JUS.
fee of the Peace, between Henry Sch on
maker, deceased. and the prisoner, In
which lie Che prsontr) had pleaded thr
oele in question, by way OF set "h tt
Schoonmaker's demand. and that SciIn"n-
Fl maker was present at the time, and did uos
ld,trnd 10 DENY that he had given such
q note. The prisoatr'- counsel had preri-
ousy endea, orcd to establish such ldet
ly narnl evidence. hut had wholly failed N
the attempt. the wraoner now statrd,
Iaat l.suuire Van Der Zee could produce
the original plea, aud therefore requested
! 9ermission 10 examine him, which was
r-adily agreed to by the Court VI. V"n
Der Zee was then sworn, and after stating
tie pendency of the suit, was requested to
produce the original plea. He produced
several papers. among which Was Il plea
which dill not 5 Elk Of the note, nor cor
respond with the prisoners ALI CATION
The ~ )sDncr tbrreupon declared, that hr
VA SIRE there wa5.dnOthtr plea more par !
ica'ir tha that, a d requested Nr. VAN
Der he to laok Rgsiu for such othei pl-s,.
The witness being still unanlc 10 fni such
an instrument among his papers, the pris n. /
or undertook to aid him in hrs search, e1d
very speedily produced from the docn-
ments of the witness q written pl"a IN
which the note was * cttra'eli Described
and SIT up rs the prisoner had alleged. -
The discovery of this plea excited gre,
emoton, and was hailed for tbr moment
as conclusive proof of the lnnoc4nee ot the
prisoner, but the impression was AZ sud /
denly removed by the following dialogue
between the District Attorney and tae Wit |
ness.
sr9e Question: p'" '"" ever see this pie be
.lnstrer. Never to my knowledge. I
rew see it is written on til" back of an ar |
fidasit in the cause of SchOoamaker and
Sat krdrr.
Cues Why did you not discover il
Nhen youlrok.d over the paperaa moneut
Size?
Ans, Because looked on the face of
thr paper and saw the affidavit, aud did
not examine the other side.
Cues. Can you state whether or not
this plea was exhibited in the suit before
yoi?
FMS, am certain it was not inteeposcd
at that time. This paper had nothing writ
ZEN on II then but the affidavit. Besides,
Tile plea IS written in ink of IA different co.
Ior, and appears to have been done very
recently.
Cues. Have say ofthese papers been
out OF your possession, at any time, and If
So when