Daily Republican., 1884-05-27
PRICE ONE CENT
STILL ON TRIAL.
THE roRREa vs.. CORAELIUs q
nENTMAN CA AsE CONSUMES
ANOTlb ER DAY.

- -~@>-
Superior Court resumed proceedlng,
at 3 o'clock Monday afternoon, anu
took up the trial df the case OF Forpe'
vs. Cornelius & Ssntman.
Jesse q. Cornelius was recalled ana
re-examined by Mr.. Hoffecker 1or tne
| defense.
Lawrence Sentman was sworn, anu
testified that he is one OF the deiend-
ants in this CASE Before this mortgage
was assigned to Forbes, he called on the
witness number of times and told MIN
chat if he would consent to this assign
mept. he would clear them of all indebt
edness on the property did not know
until Mrs. Hartman told him that she
had control of the property. Ihe re,
mainder ofhis testimony corroborateu
that of Mr.. Cornelius, and when the
direct testimony closed he was SUBJECT
I'd to a searching cross-examinatlon Oy
Mr. Spruance.
Thomas Il. Lally testified that he 10 q
notary public. The deeds for the prop
erty were shown the witness and ne
recognized them as having been lett az
lis office on April q, 1888, and SAID
| hat he afterwards had them &C.
knowledged.
| Mr.. Spruance called Samuel D. Forbes
the stand, when Mr.. Hotfecker SAID
| that he wanted to examine hlm pelore
he was sworn, and asked him II ne
believed in the existence OF supreme
being. The witness did not answer Tor
several minutes, and when he did re-
| uliyd that he supposed he believed the
same as other people.
Iais was not satisfactory to MT.
Hutfecker, and he pressed the question
when Mr.. Forbes answered that he did,
and also believed in future state OF
rewards and punishments. The wit
ness was then affirmed, and testified
that he drew up the deed conveying the
property, and inserted Mrs Hartman s
name she paid the price agreed upon,
and he had nothing further to do Win
lit.
The property was not held for him,
and he had no interest in it. He pro-
posed to Cornelius Il Sen tman that they
l-houd make over this property at
Il Wright and Cedar streets to him, and
he would SOC what could be done TO-
ward settling with their creditors, bu'
as they refused to accept the offer, tht
. matter fell through.
He had nothing to do with the trans
fer ol the property to Mrs. Hartman
It Iueither did he pay the $3.50. He wa
. not present at the time the deed wa
acknowledged to Mrs. Hartman, nsl
: ther did he know anything about 1t
y All negotiations between the witnes
:. and The parties were broken of Defor
! he properly was transferred TO Mrs
Hartman.
,sl Mr. Hoffecker cross-examined tn
o witness at some longtb, but withou
materially affecting his direct evidence
o. Mr.. Spruance then asked him seyeri
n redirect questions, and in answer b
said that he did not consider the houst
a. worth more than $500 apiece, althoug
Ney might bring a hundred dollal
y, more than that.
90 Maria Z. Hartman was sworn. an
testified that she bought the for
"a nc,lses at Wright and Cedar stree
l. frum Cornelius and Seminar she gay
Ih-m in consideration no'e for S5
20 ANA assumed the obligation on moi
10 for 500 held by Duncan, against I'll
y frm there was some dispute abol
.his note and the witness agreed to II
/, demnify Cornelius & Sentman againlt
d any trouble about the note.
The witness bought the property fo
70 herself, and not rs the trustee for any
d one else. Since she has held the prof
VI erty she has spent about $500 in finish
ing one of the houses this was her oW
= money, and she spent it on her ow
9 account, and not for anyone else. tn
win ess understood when she bough
d the property that she was taking it sui
n ,ect TO the mortgage. She did not &c
y TIE deed as sOOp as it was executed, a
, she hesitated about paying the money
a knowing that the mortgage and severa
s debts we're standing against it, and sh
thought if they were all good ther
would not be enough to pay them.'
Sac did not get the deeds until afte
Mr.. Cornelius called, and asked her t
take possession of the property, as tn
boys were breaking the windows an
otherwise damaging it. This witnes
was also subjected to a searching cross
examination without changing he
direct testimony.
This closed the testimony on bot
sides and Mr.. Spruance submitted i
evidence a judgment Of Samuel d
Forbes, against Cornelius & Sentman
originally for 81, 300, and upon whic
between $500 and 5000 is still due,
q record Of the mortgage in question an
Ialso record Of mechanics lien
r amounting to about $2,391.
Mr.. Spruance then opened his argu
4 ment to the jlry and continued t
? speak until Conrt adjourned at 6 0
! until 10 o'clock this morGing.