The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-02-05
FORGERY ADMITTED AND DENIED.
The Peculiar Case Tried Befo~e Judge Nc
Lean In Freehold. N. u.


FREEHOLD, N. j., Fob. 3.-The absorbing
topic for week past has been the trial OF per
son known in tho local vernacular as bill
War'ick. the bonus man" on charge OF forgery
William Warwick lives in Hightstown. Mercer
county. and ia widely known and well hated in
that and adjoining counties. whero no has
earned good deal Of ill-wil whilo he has bocn
growing rich. Tho acqulttal a fortnight ago OF
John II. Silvers. tho ex xAssemblymnn who was
indicted upon Warwick complaint. for passing
TO him u forged noto for s2i75 could only have
been upon tho theory Of Warwicks guilt; for
Silycrs's only defence was that he had drawn
tho f2.l75. and forged his father-n-law's name
TO II upon Warwlck's request
The case was called on Tuesday before Judge
Mclean and the Associate Judges. Silvers was
the active spirit In the prosecution. and had en-
gagged ex-Judgo Robbins to assist tho public
prosecutor. Robert Allen. Jr. Gen. Haight de-
Tended Warwick. Silvcrs was tho first witness.
Hc said that tho transaction arose out Of the
attempted sale by him of somo mortgages for
Warwick on Trenton property in December
1873 They were TO bo assigned TO him. and he
was TO givc an endorsed note IN security. BY
request Of Warwick he drew up "A note for 81 .i5O
as a sample Of the kind Of security he could
give. and he signod the name Of S. 4. Duncan
his iather-in-lnw, IA Joint maker. This he
saw. him; md Warwick who says he can
neither rend nor write nnNhing save his own
name. took i homo TO gGt road to him by some
mcmbcr of his family. But the negotiation Of
the mortgages fell through. and he asked War
wick for the note. Warwick said it was do
sirOycd. The next he heard was thGt payment
bad been dcmanlcd from his iather-in. law 10y
Isaac P-ttv. of iiichstown, 10 whom Warwick
had pnSsrl the nutc and the ncNt time he met
him Warwick charged him with hnNing forged
the note. and demanded payment Siyers being
rrlu tln' he procured warrant iOr his arrest
from Squire Johnson. in Highistown. which
he held over him until he forced him 10 pay
some a. 800
The rest Of Slvcrss story docs not look so
slim. He said that when Warwick asccrtainrd
thai the two years in which m indictment could
hc found was about to expire. he insisted upon
having further rod To hold over him as n con-
dltion of staying his hand. At the instance OF
Warwick he drew up another note in Warwick's
presence on oct s. 1875 for sll75. and forged his
fathcr-in-laws name once more. He did IT, he
alleges. after consulting some friends to entrap
Warwick believing that he could not render
himsrif liable for forgery thus procured. and
way. As tIc not> 6ccanH due he refused to pay
Warwick went before the Grand Jury. got Sill
ycrs indicted, and was himself indicted upon
Mr.. Duncan. a farmer near Hghtsfown. said
thht ms name on eaeh OF the notes WIS a
second not. In June or July last. and threaten
cd Ia have Silvcrs locked up. Other witnesses
testified 10 similar threats. Warwick denied
NllNiTr : NlTNs llN sAlu tllhl nc WIS SECURITY
for Sllvers on bridge contract in 1874. and that
the first nptc was given him in payment for
money lent 70 AIRY on the work. He DID not
suspect or know that It was forged until Mr.
P'ity told him Mr.. Duncan had denied the sig
nature. He tcrcupnn taxed SilVers with thu
forgery. aud Si ilycrs first denied II. then said his
father law had authorized him To- put his
name to II. hut finally admitted h,s crime and
promised To mike Ia" amount good. ii" let the
matter run along until n"arly two y"nrs had
elapsed. getting some triiine payments. and
then insisted upon being secured tor that and
other dchts that SilVcrs owed him. Slvers
agreed to meet him in Freehold on the 4th Of
o. tober. VT, and give him noto with his
were on friendly terms once more. and his
fathcr-in-l law would back him. when he took
the note home his folks told him they thought il
was forgery; and some time alterward Mr.
Duncan So pronounced It,
Matthias ". tomh"s. hrother-in-law of Sill
verS swor" that npte Of sl6i2 when pur:
ported 10 bear his endorsement. and which had
boon passed by Sllvers 10 Warwick. was also "a
William H. Howell. Cashier Of the First Ma
tional Bank of II HightstOwn. said that In Dccem-
ber. 1873. hc aseertained that several notes dis
counted for Silvers had forged gnuiures. and
that when charged with having committed
them. he burst out crying. and begged OIL on ar-
forged names WAS his father-in- laws: another
his hrothcr-n- laws. Samuel II. Schan X. tho
attorney Of tho bank. testified 10 similar admis-
slOns made to him by SllNvrs.
liy this and similar testimony. Gen. Haicht
adroity managed tn shit the onus on Silvers.
the main issue being one Of vera.ity between
took the stand. Silvers, who had sat through the
trial nj the elbow Of the counsel for tn" State,
got up. visibly disturbed, and lett the room, 4
number OF ,peope from llightstown were called
truth. Gen Haight and Mr. Robbins then took
turns in eNcorlatlng the regulations OF their re-
spective clients. Judg. VI Lean summed up
rather unfavorably for Warwick. The jury dis
iiAslatl.