St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1877-12-14
The Peabody Forgery.
MEETING OF THE VICTIMS.


At the request of Van Dyke and Mer-
rill, endorsers of paper issued by R. E.
Peabody & Co., there was meeting of
parties holding notes purpOrting to be
endorsed by them, at Wells River on
Tuesday last. Some fifteen or twenty
gentlemen were present, including
Messrs. Van Dyke & Merrill, who also
had counsel in lawyer Drew of Lancas-
ter. The meeting organized by the
choice of Henry Chase, chairman, when
after considerable discussion, it was
agreed to have all the notes folded in
such manner as to reveal only the en-
dOrsements on the back, and putting
them in pile on the table before them,
to ask Van Dyke and Merrill to sep
arate the genuine from the spurious.
Twenty-four notes were thus presented,
and these gentlemen together examined
each signature separately and carefully,
and placed the notes in two piles, call
ing one pile genuine and the other
forged. These notes were then taken
in charge by two men, while all ad-
jOurned to dinner. After dinner Van
Dyke and Merrill went through the
same process again, with exactly the
same result-namely admitting nine
us genuine, and rejecting fifteen as
forged.
AS we understand the case, it is this :
Van Dyke & Merrill endorsed ten $1,000
notes drawn by R. E. Peabody & Co.,
said notes maturing at different dates
and extending over 81 months time.
To secure themselves, they took a
mortgage of the mill at McIndOe's, on
top of the Railroad mortgage, and in
this mortgage deed, each of these notes
was described, with the date of its ma
turity. Learning that there were more
than ten notes outstanding against them,
Peabody was arrested as stated last
week. Van Dyke g. Merrill wished to
determine if they could which were the
genuine notes, and so called this meet
ing of holders. The examination was
as fair as it could be made, and it SEEM
ed to be the honest endeavor of the ell
dorsers to identify their signatures il
they could. There was nothing bind
ing, however, at this interview, and II
any one thinks he has genuine note,
his claim is as good as it ever was. II
is generally admitted that the forgery
was so well done that it is not certain
that the parties themselves can deter
mine their own signatures to certainty
One thing seems evident, however, only
ten notes were originally given, but q
have already appeared. One note given
for % months did not appear at this in
vestigation, but it is known that Hyde
Warren & Heard, Boston, hold one OF
that description, and it may be this
missing one, and it may be forged one
The notes rejected by Van Dyke &
Merrill, as in their judgment spurious
mature as follows: Que in one year
seven in two years, one in 25 months
four in % months, two in q months
All the notes were for $1,000. OF those
rejected as forgeries, Capt. A. Nj
Beattie, Lancaster, holds two; Lane
Pitkin & Brock, Montpelier, two; Lyn-
don bank two; First National, st
Johnsbury, two; Merchants National
three; Joseph Perry, Gardiner, Me-
C. III. Weeks, Canaan. VT, Bailey q
Park, Montpelier, Gilchrist & Perry
McIndoe's, each one.
AS intimated above, the rejection O
these notes by Van Dyke and Merrii
does not actually prove them forgerles
although the public generally VIII ac
cept them as such. The cashier OF tht
Merchants bank in this place says thai
Van Dyke & Merrill examined the notes
!, in that bank three times, and every
time pronounced two, and the same