National Republican., 1878-05-17
M0ULTON'S TRIAL.
The Defense Submit their Testi-
m0ny.
And Claim that No Forgery was Committed
Mouiton's Own stutemeut-The Rca-
son that Bc Went Away so sud
deniy-Thc jury to Take
tho Case To-Day.

Of promissory notes In the name Of Louis Ed-
wards, was continued before Justice Wylic In
the Criminal Court yesterday.
Mr.. J. X. Rcdington, counsel, made the
opening for the defense, and said that thy
would show that no forging had been commit
ted, but that the notes were of a second series,
made with the full knowledge aud consent of
Louis Edwards, and that there was neither
wrong or fraud in the whole affair." or any act
that could reflect upon the honest intentions
of the defendant.
George II. Johnson, who was engaged with
Mr.. Moulton in the real estate and insurance
business, testified thai Of tho frst series Of
notes Edwards paid only four or five. He
could not tell anything about the balance of
that series. In the settlement Of the business
Mr. Moulton purchased the witnesses interest
in the notes. At that time one was over due
and unpaid. He was in the office frequently
after the dissolution of the partnership. He
saw Edwards repeatedly, and conveyed Mr..
MOulton's messages TO him that unless the
notes were paid promptly he should be COM
PEELED TO sell him out. Tho witness was pres
ent at M interview between Moulton and Ed'
wards, when tho former sud that II the latter
wonld take.up the two notes over due that he
would extend the time as 10 the others, which
Edwards agreed to do.
I
January !, 1874. Very little money was re-
quired. lie went out in June, ls13, having
been In business five months, and received
tGOas his share Of the settlement. Mr.. Moul-
ton purchased
HIS SHARE IL TUE NOTES
before the dissolution, which was all the inter
est he had in the business, excepting the $50.
He could not rccolcct when the third, fourth,
and fifth notes were paid His answer in re.
gard to the payment Of tho fifth note was gov.
erncd entirely by what the witness saw writ
ten on the back of the paper.
At the time Of the conversation between
Moulton and Edwards, early in the winter or
late in the fall Of l-1i, several Of the notes
were overdue. Edwards said that he knew
1t because he was compelled to plaster the
house, aud the money went for that purpose.
lie was intimately acquainted with most OF
Mr.. MOulton's transactions, but knew nothing
of the note of Mary Bollman for $1,000, and
subsequent transfer Of the Samo to HoratiO
King; neither did lie know Of the transfer OF
the Edwards notes to McDaniels. lie did not
know that twcnty.four of the notes were
found in Edwards posse sion and that he had
from one TO ten of the series.
The witness was unable to tell In whose
hand md.writing were tho words on the notes
paid in full These same ten notes were
endorsed by Moulton and johnson, bit he
| could not tell when 1t was done. The en-
| dorSel's name was erased, which showed that
| the notes had been paid.
G.. T.. Rowem testified that he was clcr. fol
Mr. MOultOm in l-1i and l-15. The notes OI
| the first series were in his handwriting, and
| he witnessed the signatures of Edwards. The
| second series he wrote and witnessed the sign.
| ing of them also by Mr. Edwards. lie did
not remember the transaction or seeing Ell
| wards before the notes were signed; he only
| knew the man by sight, but did not know
| that he was the man that signed the second
series of notes, yet. from knowledge of Ell
| wards gcined subsequently. he thought that
| he was the man that did II.
| Cruss.examined lie thought that he saw
Mr.. Edwards at Mr.. Moultous Office about
January or February, 1874, but would not b,
positive, aud would not swear that lie eve
saw him there.
MoULToS's TESTIMONY.
Mr. Charles Ii. MoultOn testified that he hat
| resided here since the summer OF lSO2. foi
ten years he was in the Treasury, and at tn,
| same time he was interested in the grocery
business under the firm name Of Moulton 8
| Hill. After that he went into the real estat'
business lie sold Louis Edwards house II
February, 1874, for 800, agreeing to take nit,
| notes of SIS each in payment secured by
deed of trust. He pail the first promptly
made default In tho second, aud continued
| to grow slow in the payments. lie then tol'
Edwards that lie must pay as much as tn
| house would rent for. Subsequently Edward
came to his Office and it was agreed to take ou
u second series Of notes, which was done, bu
no deed of trust was taken to secure them
| After this arrangement Edwards paid his note
more promptly. The second lot of notes wer
signed by Edwards in the witness Office in til
presence of Mr.. Rowan, who witnessed the sig
natures. After the execution of the secon
series Edwards paid them quite regularly 10
Il year, and when he paid note in full th
original one was returned to the maker, an
he took it away.
OF the first series that was not paid the vii
ness used eighteen of them as collateral to NJ
McDaniels security for 500 loaned. Til
reason why he went away SO suddenly I'll
first time was that he bad been confined in Ii
Office for four years very closely, and that h
was treated by his physician for an affection
the brain, and directed to take rest, and
left, lie did send messages by Mr.. Johnso
Tor Edwards To call unon him aud make SON
arrHnschvht to meet his notes. lie concurrt
III wh"t Mr. johnson testified to rs occurii
IN his once between the three parties.
Crosa-examined He explained the transa
: tiou to Mr.. Ford, aud that he held u deed
| tust on the first series, hut did not say tn
, the second set were unsecured
From this point the examination went in
: the two series of notes, their issuing, maturin
, and manipulations.
He gave Profit check TO hold until &c
tain houses on X street were completed, b
did not give him forged deed of trust at Il
time.
, lie did not fee frsm the city on the first q
casion. but went away and made an assig
, ment for the benefit Of his creditors. The sc
= ond time that he left the city was because
: was threatened with assassination. lie d
climcd to state why he took assumed names
! London and other places. The defense he
rested.
r Tho Government, In rehuttal, called Milt
Ford, who testified that Mr.. MoultOn nev
limited that there existed duplicate series
. notes when he took one set, and he suppOs
that the deed of trust accompanied them. OF
: crwise lie would not have taken the paper.
= Louis Edwards recalled. Mr.. Moult
> never delivered any of the second series
: notes TO the witness. Tho only one he pa
came from Mr. Ford. There never was a
n, understanding by which u second set of nO
a WAS To lie made.
!. General IIenkle offered to submit the ca
\ OIL behalf of the defendant without srgune
= but the proposition was declined.
District-Attorney Wells opened for the &c
ernment, and WAS followed by Mr.. Rodingt
/, aud General Hcnklc for the defense.
The District-Attorney then summed up, |
without charging the jury the court adjourn
until to day.
Legislation for the District.
~ Mr. Hamlin, by request, presented in
1 InF pi