Massachusetts spy and Worcester advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1823-1825, 1823-12-03

John Ivan Dalfsen Coeymans, anoth-
er question arose. Six witnesses, among
whomw sSheriff Van Antwerp, and all Of
whom were perfectly acquainted with
Col. Van Dalfsen's hand writing, depos-
ed, that in their opinion the signature of
John L. Van Dalfsen was not genuine.
SIX witnesses on the part Of the prison.
er, among whom were the son and SON.
ln-law OF Col. Van Dalfsen, were equal
ly positive as to its authenticity'-A
great variety of circumstances were pro-
we'd on both sides, but it is impossible to
say what would have been the result of
the trial, had not the prisoner, in the last
stage Of the cause, ensured his conyic,
lion, by bold attempt to impose upon
the Court and Jury, After the District
Attorney had closed the argument of
the cause, and after Judge Duer had
risen to charge the Jury, the prisoner
stated that he had omitted to direct his
Counsel TO call H. A. Van Der Zee, ESQ.
OF Coeymans, who. was then in the
court, and by whom he could PROVE,
that in July, 1922, an action, which had
since abated by the death of Schoonma-
ker, was depending before him as a. JUS
tice of the Peace, between Henry
Schoonmaker, deceased, and the prison
er, in which he (the prisoner) had plead
ed the note in question, by way of set off
to Schoonmaker's demand, and that
Schoonmaker was present at the time,
and did not pretend to deny, thai he had
given such note. The prisoners Coun-
sci had previously endeavored to estab-
fish such fact by parol evidence, but
had wholly failed in the attempt. The
prisoner now stated, that Esq Van Der
Zee could produce the original plea,
and he therefore requested permission
TO examine him, which was readily a.
greed to by the Court. Mr.. Van Der
Zee was then sworn, and after stating
the tendency of the suit, was requested
to produce the original plea. He pro-
duced several papers, among which was
a plea which did not speak of the note,
nor correspond with the prisoners allie
CATION. The prisoner thereupon declar-
ed, that he was sure there was another
plea more particular than that, and re-
quested Mr.. Van Der Zee to look again
ior such other plea. The witness being
still unable 10 find such an instrument a.
mong his papers, the prisoner undertook
TO aid him in his search, and very spec
dily produced from the documents of the
witness written plea in which the note
was accurately described, and SET up as
the prisoner had alleGged. The discoy-
cry of this plea excited great emotion.
and was hailed for the moment as con-
elusive proof of the innocence of the
prisoner, but the impression was as sud-
denly removed by the following dia.
logue between the District Attorney and
the witness:
9. Did you ever see this plea be.
fore i?
A.. Never to my knowledge. | now
see it is written on the back of an affida.
Wit in the cause of Schoonmaker and
Sackrider.
Q. Why did you not discover it when
yon was looking over the papers a mo.
ment since? 81
a. Because looked on the face OF
the paper and saw the affidavit, and did
not examine the other side.
9. Can you state whether OF not this
plea was exhibited in the suit before
you?
4. i am certain it was not interposed
al that time. This paper had nothing
written on it then but the affidavit Be
sides, the plea is written in ink of diff.
terent color, and appears to haye been
done very recently.
Q. Have any Of these papers been
out of your possession, at any time, and
if so, when?
Il. They nave always been in my pos
session, except for short time to-day,
when the prisoner, Mr.. Sackrider, re.
quested me to show him the papers; he
looked them over, and then asked me
to lend him this affidavit, to shew it 10
his counsel for short time.
G. Was the plea endorsed on the pa
per when you lent it to the prisoner?
a. No, am sure it was not. Mr.
Sackrlder soon afterwards returned it to
me, but did not examine it particular
ly. D..
Q. In whose hand writing is this
plea
A. In the hand writing of the prison.
eP. e.
" The latter fact was admitted by the
prisoner, who made no attempt at any
explanation or excuse, and the jury 10
a-short lime returned a verdict of gull
~ Sentence, fourteen years imprison-
menti In the State Prison. the first three
nnnIhS In snIit. ~, -. e ----.-I