Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-29
BOWEN AND PAGE.
BOTH HONORABLYACQUIT
The Afsssd Fersed Paper Proved 10 be the
wrssiss Of Mrs. CersIey's Nieec-summary
Of the Evfdenes.

wrssiss Of Mrs. CersIey's Nieec-summnr'
or the Evfdenes.
The continued case Of John T. Bowen
the carpenter who was indicted by the
grand jury of the Hastings Court o.
Manchester on Tuesday, came up in tho
Mayors Court Of that city yesterday
notwithstanding been partially heard
last week on bcnch-warrant issued by
the Hastings Court after the grand jury
brought in presentment.
The courtroom was crowded with
friends of the accused. Mr.. B. A. Han
cock. Commonwealth attorney oi
Chesterfield, appeared, at the earnest
solicitation of Judge French and Of the
counsel for the defence, to represent the
Commonwealth and ex-Judge William
/. Clopton and Mr.. A. C. Attkisson ap-
peared as counsel for the accused.
:.:- TRIED ON THE WARRANT.
Mr.. Bowen was tried on the warrant
issued Immediately after the present
ment was brought in by the grand jury,
and not on the indictment.
There were large number Of wit
nesses in the case both for the Common
wealth and for the defence, all Of whom
were sworn and then separated. Mrs.
Cersley was partially examined when
the case was up before, copy of which
evidence had been preserved and was
read by the acting Commonwealth's at
torney, who was not present when il
was taken. Mrs. Cersley denied sign
ing her name to the paper in question,
which is as follows:
"MANcHEsTER, VA, Dec. 2, 1884.
" Mr.. Boren:
My lawyer was here to-day, and
said he will bring the case up before the
court OH the third Monday in the month,
and then | will try to let you have the
whole amount. ! have not sent Mr..
Cersley word about the rent, as | pre-
fer TO pay you the whole.
"Respectfully,
IL. J. ' tERSLE1.
Mrs. Cersley said that she knew no.
thing Of the note until after the case
(the suit in the Hastings Court OF
Bowen rs. Mrs. Cersley) was decided,
and she was informed by Sergeant Fitz-
gerald that Bowen had obtained judg-
ment against her. She was questioned
in regard TO the signature to the note.
and said that she could not write like
that if she were to try.
MRS. MCCORMICK DID HER WRITING.
MRS. Mccormick" said the wit
ness. "did my writing for me. That
note is not in her handwriting but she
will testify to it herself. | could not
swear to its being her writing"
The witness Wa hown. a document
to which was attached the na1nsof Lucy
j. Cersley, the same acknowledged be-
fore James VI. Perdue. notary public.
She positively said that the signature to
this document was not in her hand
writing. "Mr. Perdue, think. signed
it while held the pen, or my son
signed il in my presence. On every
occasion when Mr.. Perdue visited me
either he or my son signed the papers
for me to the best of my memory.
Witness could not swear to any
body's handwriting but her own. not
even her daughters.
She was shown note dated July Is,
1878, addressed to Mr.. Samuel NJ. Page,
her counsel. and signed l.. j. CerSley
This note was in possession Of Mr.. Sam
uel Page. The signature to it was
written with ink, and bore a strik-
ing resemblance to the signature to
the note which was given to the grand
jury, as did the entire note.
AvERsE TO WRITING.
BY Judge Clopton Who did you
say wrote this letter sent to Mr.. Sam
uel Page!
Mrs. Cersley: I don't say who
wrote it. There was some such mes
sage sent; don't know who wrote it
or anything about it.
BY Mr.. Hancock: If you did not
sign them yourself when Mr.. Samuel
Page brought you these papers, who
signed them for you:
Mrs. Cersley: My niece (Nlrs. Nc
COrmick) must have signed them. No
one else to my memory signed anything
for me. | might have called on Mr.
Samuel Page to sign them, because
never did any more writing than could
possibly help. Ny niece generally did
my writing. | might have called on
Mr.. Samuel Page to sign these papers
in my presence. am not positive.
MRS. M'CORMICK'S TESTIMONY.
Mrs. Mccormick (niece of Mrs. Gers
lew was the next witness. She was
shown a note signed l.. j. Ccrsley to
Mr.. Sam. Page. She denied that the
signature was hers, and said she could
not recognize Mrs. Cersley's daughter 5
signature she did not write the note
in question. but acknowledged signing
several other notes, which were pro-
duCed-all Of which were signed l.. j.
Cersley. and addressed to Mr.. Sam.
Page. She had done no writing for
Mrs. Cersley since she (witness) was
married, April l2, 1888. Some other
papers were shown her. signed l.. j.
Cersley, the signatures of which she did
not know whether they were her own
or not. Several of the notes were writ
ten on Mount Holyoke Mills paper, the
same as that on which the alleged forged
note was written.
MR.. PAGES EVIDENCE.
Charles l.. Page was called to the
witness stand by Acting Common
wealth's-Attorney Hancock. He testi-
fed that in the early part Of 1884 j. I.
Bowen informed him that he Bowen,
had a claim against Mrs. l.. j. Gers
ley, and put the claim in his hands to
collect. THE balance due was $3.50.
| believe sl04 had been paid on the bill
when it was placed in my hands" The
way he became familiar with the sigma
ture Of Mrs. l.. j. Cersley was by ex-
a,nintpo tha nanare a., tha J;vNrca c,,,t