The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1883-06-16
A CELEBRATED CASE.
The Woodward Abrahams Cases Com
Promised-End of Stupendous
Legal Fight.

promised-End of a Stupendous
Legal Fight.
The settlement of the celebrated suit
of the banks and others against MIR
Woodward Abrahams, as an alleged en-
dorser ON notes dra xn by J. Kos. Parkel
has been consummated, with the excep
tion of the suit of the National Bank o
Rising Sun on two notes, and the neces
sary papers were filed in the numerou!
cases last week. The total number
of suits settled is G., two others having
been dismissed by plaintiffs. Probably
no cases have ever attracted more gener
al interest in this community than these
The defense, as is well known, was thai
the alleged endorsement of Mr.. Abra
hams was forgery. Mr.. Abrahams ha:
been known for many years as man o
ample means and as one of the mos
prominent and honorable business mer
of the city; j. Kos Parker, by whom tie
lation had for a long time been conduct
ing Il large business on Charles street.-the
amount of the forged paper was very
large, and it was held by about one hal
the banks in the city, and by severa
well-known individuals. These facts in
creased public interest III the two trials
which have taken place in the United
States Circuit Court. The first tria
came off about one year ago at the suit
of the First National Bank, lasting near
~ four weeks, and the second, at the suit
Of the Bank of Baltimore, was conclud
ed about three weeks ago. The counse
for the plaintiff in the first suit were
MeSSrS. William F. Prick, Arthur w
VI ,chen. Alex. Preston and others, ana
in the second suit the plaintiffs counsel
were Messrs. VIM. +. Frick, John p
Poe, Governor Whyte and Bernard Car
ter Mr. Abrahams' counsel in each case
were Messrs. |. Nevett Steele, Charles
Marshall, Albert Ritchie and Richard NJ,
Nenable. Just as the jury was about tc
deliver its verdict in the first case the
plaintiff dismissed its suit, Sc that the
verdict was not formerly entered, but the
fact was Immediately made known that
the jury had agreed upon Il verdict fo1
defendant. In the second trial, not being
oh Il, 10 hn
standing ten in favor of defendant and two
for plaintiff. The testimony was much the
same i'll each case, showing that Mr..
Ahrahams had befriendel Parker since
he was lad: had started him in business
and been his benefactor from the time he
came to Baltimore as a poor boy; that
Mr.. Abrahams had endorsed for him in
small amounts from the time he began
business until about 1877, when the en-
dorsements amounting to $4,000 or $40,
coo, Mr. Abrahams declined to continue
unless Parker procured = joint endorser.
Henry Arthur, Parker's father-in-law,
reputed then to be man of means, from
that time became q joint endorser, con.
Quoting an apparently safe and prosper
Gus business, and the responsibility OF
endorSers being thus divided, Parker in
duced these gentlemen gradually to in
crease their endorsements to a line OF
about $4,000. In August, 1881, by
Parkcr's having failed to provide for its
payment, Mr.. Abrahams was astounded
to learn of the existence of note which
he had not endorsed, and this led to the
discovery that there was fraudulent pa,
per ont Mr.. Abrahams testified that
Parker then stated to him that he had
changed the dates of matured paper
and reused it. This statement. it was
afterwards discovered, was not true, but
the fraudulent paper out was, in fact
then forged. Parker represented the
amount TO be comparatively small; that
his stock was ample to meet it all; that
he would force the sale of his stock anC
retire all this paper during the fall. anC
entreated Mr.. Abrahams not to expose
aud ruin him and his family. Anxiou!
to save from ruin J man whom he hat
befrended since childhood, and believing
that Parker was fully able and intende,
to retire this fraudulent paper by forcet
sales of his stock, and that the holders
of it would thus get fully paid for pape
which, had the exposure then been made
would have been shown to be fraudulen
and worthless. Mr.. Abrahams yielded
to Parker's entreaties. While his cours
at this time was merciful to Parker, i
was, so faG as his information and belle
then extended, also to the best interest
of the holders of the fraudulent paper.
This forbcarauce was an unfortun at
mistake to Mr.. Abrahams, but no on
else lost a dollar by it, for the books O
Parker. which We're in evidence, Shove
that the banks held more of this forge
paper in August, 1881, than they di
when the exposure came. Had MI
Abrahams then exposed the thing, Their
! being only $2G, 900 genuine paper, an
Arthur then being good he would hav
escaped with Il loss of only $13, 900 wher
a. it has now cost him $50, 600.
Believing that Parker was taking ever
dollar from his business during the ia
of 1881 to retire this paper, and that
was being paid off, Mr.. Abrahams il
creased his endorsements to $42, 900 t
enable Parker to make necessary add
| tions to his stock, but from the list {
| September 1881, he never allowed Parl
er to handle note after he had endorse
ond National Bank for discount, givin
| Parker the proceeds, and thus from til
lSt of September, 1881 since which time a
the forged paper bears date, not sing
genuine endorsement went anywhere e:
ccpt into the Second National. The $40
coo in that bank has been paid by NJ
Abrahams. About Christmas, 1881, NJ
Abrahams was told that Mr.. Slothow,
held paper dated since September, pu
porting to be endorsed by him. He il
mediately made inquiries, saw the pap
and denounced it as a forgery. With
a few days after, the public knew all IL
facts. Mr.. Abrallams could not tell IL
til four months after. when it had 4
maturcd what was the amount of I'll
forged paper, and he then learned throus
the protests, that it was S94, 900, all
four months notes of $1,000 each. TT
evidence further showed, that viii
Parker had retired the forged pap
1901 10 l..