The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-12-30
CITY HNTELL1GEN Gle.
SCHOEPPE.
Importnnt Additional Fncts - Correction Of
False Statements is The Checks nud Wh
Proved.


LErrRR FROM DIR. scHoEPPEs COUNSEL.
CARLISLE, Dec. 2s.--To the Editor Of The BreniW
Tclegraph--I have been painfully impressed with tue
Ci Miss Stennecke, dated December 0, 1865 in his
favor had perhaps, more to do with his conviction,
and was more damaging In the public estimation,
than any other fact connected with the moral cir
cumstances of the case. What was worse
knew of no mode of countcracting that im-
preston. except the statement of his father,
which was published, to the effect that Miss stem
necke acknowledged before mm & t9e sgnatnire o 10
name as a witness But was also perfectly aware,
and 1t the fact that on account OF the Kew Mr.
Schoeppe not being known to any one, and on ac-
count OF the relationship he sustained to the pris
oner, the public would give 1t no crcdence, although
he is o man Of most excellent character.
In this county we could procure no evidence what
ever in regard to her signature. But few persons
here had known her, and those who did were her
relations and bitterly hostile to DR.. schoeppe. The
only other person who knew anything in regard to
her handwriting was Mr.. Smith, the teller in the
bank, who formed the opinion that the signature to
the check Of $50 was forgery although he paid 1t
The prisoners counsel in Baltimore also made dill
gent effort to If any testimony could be procured
there. But the tide OF FEELING was so fearIully
against him at that time that the case was utterly
hopeless. - -, -, 80
man that Mr.. Coleman, the Cashier of the National
Merchants Bank, OF Baltimore who had refused
payment of the check presented by DR.. Schoeppe,
had lately been making some examinations OF her
signature and that he was exceedingly surprised at
the result Immediately wrote TO Mr.. Webster, Of
personal kno owledge he had OF her signature and If
he had any to get him to look at the signature to the
,s @ eTengE gye from Mr. Of which
saidavt Of Mr.. Coleman. This is the first
this subject, and gladly make it known
that it may correct the public prejudice which has
was a forgery l have never Mr.. Coleman
myself; bat understand he is gentleman some
what advanced in years, and Know by reputation
that he stands for integrity and intelligence among
the first men in Baltimore. The position he holds is
the best guarantee Of that.
am also informed we can now prove (and the
name OF the gentleman has been given me by whom
we can prove p that Mr. Stewart art the executor OF
will OF Sd December 1866, is strikingly like Miss
Stenneckes and that he would not Ike to swear that
In connection with this subject it may also be well
to correct an error that has been somewhat damag-
ing to DR.. Schoeppe. reporter has lately pub
lished, as coming from his EXcellency Governor
Geary, "That his counsel Or. Scheeppe's) had
subscribing witness to the WILL be called to prove
her signature" II any one has made such report
to the Governor II Is the iaisenoOd OF an assassin
the record of the court shows that we objected to
the commonwealth Offering evidence OF forgery,
1as the subscribing witness is in Court, and the
Commonwealth has shown no reason for not call
ing him."
monwealth offered the will ia evidence as forged
will. We objected to it going in evidence as such.
prisoner and seated him inside Of the bar. They
offered Mr.. Stewart, the executor in the other will,
dence, as the subscribing witness to the will was in
court, and the Commonwealth had shown no reason
for not calling him. We even pointed him out, and
said, ''There he is gentlemen - call him." The
Court decided they must call him before
they could oner any other evidence on the
I@OeOe no evidence Whatever ] on the "A subject se
and thus opened no door for us, and gave us no
cason to call him; If they had, We most certainly
would have called him. An eminent legal gentle
man has said we ought to have called him, as 'the
jury often incrs one crime from the presumption OF
another" never understood before that defend
ant was ever, 'in court OF JUSTICE called upon to
particle Of evidence to prove his guilt We
are taught that in courts the law presun,eS
absolute innocence until the proof of guilt is rem
not for moment suppose that the rules OF law
would be reversed on us in this case. 10 think of
checking the presumptons that jurors may draw
when prejudice is ra!lyng through the community
like the bllows OF the sea-when taey heard and
knew this before they went into the jury-box-
would be as idle as the wind. If their oaths would
not prevent such presumptions, the testimony OF
defendants father, under the circumstances would
not have had the weight OF feather with them, We
only regret that the law is dead letter in such
en- ergeDcies.
There has been so much said in the papers about
this that have been exceedtnglysreluctant to
Tde gng 1 e m0as ase oR GS @e g have
that has just come to my knowledge; and while
doing this, THOUGHT it might be well to correct the
error aO0'0 A''D"'0 w. -'''p'''4i ". Ii. MILLER,
One of the Counsel OF Dr. SchOeppe
2sth Dec, 1869.
MILLER, COUNSEL FOR DR. sCHoEPPE.
BALTIMORE Dec. 27, 1S69-W. H. Miller ESQ.,
Dear Sir:-I received yours in regard to Mr.. Cole
man. ] was unable to see him this morning | now
enclose his affidavit, and am glad to be able to say
that it fully sustains the genuineness OF tht
paper. When at the Court we compared
the checks, and the Register, Mr.. Brown
the clerk who was witness at the trial, and others
all seemed to be struck with the similarity between
the signature to some OF the checks and the sigma
ture to the note. The signatures to the checks al
vary more or less; for example, about one-half o
them (say ten or twelve) have the initials NJ n
made thus: NJ. M, whilst the Others made N. m
Among them is check filled up by Mr.. Hassler
the clerk in the bank at Carlisle The initials x
with her when she appears to have had a baC
pen. The names signed NJ. M. all appear tt
have been written with better pen. Mr.. Coleman
says is mistaken In regard to his conversation
Mr. c. did not say or think the check OF $3.50 q for
gerry when it was presented. Payment was refused
Tor another reason and after Mr.. c. had heard rl
NOR about the will being forgery he said his reeol
lection of the check that the signature was IN
holder hand than usual for Miss Stennecke Wher
he subsequently looked at the checks in bank HI
found himself mistaken, and has since inclined Il
the opinion given to-day.
Very truly yours, IL. WEBSTER.
AFFIDAVIT OF THE CASHIER OF THE NATIONAL NE
CHANICs' BANK OF BALTIMORE.
In the matter of Paul Schoeppe, in the Supreme C0ur
of the State of Pennsylvania.
l. Charles r. Coleman, of the city OF Baltimore, II
the State OF Maryland having been first duly sworl
upon the Holy EVangels OF the Almighty God, before
the undersigned, Notary Public of the State o
Maryland, in and for said city, do make oath that
am the Cashier OF the National Mechanics Bank o
Baltimore and have been for many years connected
with banking nstitutions that during said time
have had MANY opportunities OF forming an opinion
of the correctness and genuineness of signatures.
knew the late Maria H. Stennecke in her lifetime
For many years, up to the time OF her death, she
kent an account with said bank. have had many
business transactions with her. and have frequently