The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-09-14
THAT STRANGE STORY.
A Reply from william Nolan Il
v. ID. NJ.
New MART1NsvILLE, Sept. 10.

New MARrINsvILLE, Sept. 10.
Editions Intelligence. E
My attention has been directed to
communication published in the INTEI,-
LIaENCER oi the 1st inst, signed Y. D. M.
The writer oi!that Communication labor.
ed diligently TO establish three points, viz;
/. To prove as unworthy. Of belief the
statement contained in the commuuica.
ton of "Nosidda," which appeared in the
lETRLILaRNCRR ot the 1st ulto., and to
make 1t appear to your readers that all
who had any knowledge oi the locality
therein spoken Of had pronounced it q
canard.
2. That the writer felt that It was due
to all parties to investigate the affair and
that he did so, and that the result OF his
investigation showed the whole story 10
be talsehood, gotten up by unprincipled
persons Tor the purpose Of anoying their
neighbors, until they would be compelled
to sacrifice their property, and remove to
some other locality. .Tft
3. To prove as unworthy OF belief any
and all statements made by any nor
persons bearing the name OF Nolan, and to
give undue prominence to worthless per.
son residing in our county, who bears the
name Of 3. f. Martin, but who, fortunate.
ly, Is not in the remotest degree related to
any OF the respectable families bearing the
same name, and residing in our county.
This writer land know who he is and
who furnished the subject matter OF tb' :
communtcationl claims that the only eye.
witnesses to the scenes related by mo
sidda" were William Helerty, Peter Ho.
mer, William Nolan, and this honest
(oh y blacksmith. B. F. Martin, and that
the first two are unknown in these parts.
should think they are. There are no
persons In Welzel county answering to
the names Of William Helerty.and Peter
Homer; but there are two persons here
whose names are William Fluharty and
Peter Homer, and they are the men al.
luded to, and they arc by no means OBJ.
scure. He admits there may be some
mistake In the orthography of tho names,
but Immediately states that he can not
proceed on conjecture. There was no
need OF Il. he knew Peter Homer was
none other than Peter Homer, of whom
he speaks subsequently, as being one Of
the unfortunate purchasers Of land from
Mr.. Nolan, which will be again alluded to.
BE says the third (Wm. Nolan) Is rather
indefinite, as there Is more than one VIM.
Nolan, and that one Of them had his ties.
timony invalidated In the courts; that the
last named OF the four witnesses, B F.
Martin, Is IN honest, working
blacksmith, with whom he Is personally
acquainted, and that he never knew him
to tell an untruth (oh y, and that he con-
cluded TO call on him for. the purpose ol
investigating the affair, and that II his
story would agree with the other that he
would call on Henry Nolan, learn when
John whuld be at home, and make his
arrangements TO sec thestones, the smoke,
the Indian hen, and, II possible, the old
but invisible man., That he then called
on Mr. Martin and heard totally differ
ent narrative. He claims that John looks
as hearty as he ever did; that they did
not search more than three hours instead
OF three days; that they saw the stones
J falling, but were not allowed TO enter the
thiCket from whence they came; thai
none were permitted 10 fire into the
thicket but the Nolans themselves: tha,
, they did not see any old man, nor did
: they chase one Of that character, and be
, believed 1t was q plot among the NolAnI
, to frighten some one, and that MHtir
told him as much before he ever read OF
/. saw tho article in the INTELLIGRNcER
and that when he did read 1t, he q
'once