Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-29

t~ ""o W ptoft that tiIN. NtTslty
used two different signatures.
Messrs. James ID. Craig, Walker
Hill, and ii. s. Quarles, of Richmond,
were then sworn as experts, and shown
q number Of notes from l.. j. Cers!ey
to Mr.. Sam. Page. OF these three
were Mrs. McCormick's acknowledged
writing.
THE WRITING IDENTIFIED.
They identified the signatures as be-
ing the same handwriting as that IN the
note in question, upon which the pre-
sentiment and indictment by the grand
jury were based.
Miss Ida Bowen, daughter of accused.
was the next witness. She said :"
went to see Mrs. Cersley three times to
collect bill which she owed father.
The third time | went Mrs. Cersley
said she had no money for father, but
would write him note. | waited on
the portico, and in few minutes she
gave me note, which took home and
gave to my mother, who gave it to my
father when he came in."
Miss Bowen looked at the note and
recognized il as being the one Mrs.
Cerslsg gave her for her father, and
supposed Mrs. Cersley wrote it or had
ii written. She saw no one at Mrs.
Cersley's except Mrs. Cersley.
Mr.. James +. Bradley testified that
Mr.. Bowen offered to trade him Mrs.
Cersley's bill, as he Nowen) was owing
Bradley. He took the note to Mrs.
Cersley several times. She did not deny
the bill, but refused to give her note for
it. The last time he presented it, how
ever, Mrs. Cersley refused to pay it.
saying that some one had told her that
Mr. Bowen charged too much for the
work. Mr.. Bradley returned the bill
TO Mr.. Bowen, and knew nothing more
about it.
THE BILL REASONABLE.
Mr. George I. Rlanton being asked
what he knew about the matter, said
- was working for Mr.. Bowen as his
foreman when the work was done. I
made some of the calculations in Mr..
Bowen's bill myself and thought the
bill very reasonable one. The work
was repairing damage done by fire, and
included repairing the roof, making new
back cornice, building carriagc-house
and stable, putting new back platform
and steps. putting new windows and re-
pairing windows. blinds, fencing, and
front doors.
The case was then submitted to the
decision Of the Court without argu-
mcnt.
Mayor Taylor decided that from all
the evidence heard there was no doubt
Mrs. Mccormick wrote the note in
question. and said that he did not
see the least particle of reasonable
Suspicion of guilt. and therefore dis
charged Mr.. Bowen as honorably ac-
Quilted and perfectly innocent.
Mr.. Il. A. Hancock, acting Common
wealtb's attorney. commended Mayor
Taylor for his decision. and heartily
endorsed It. lie asked that the charge
of forgery against Mr.. Charles l.. Page
be similarly dismissed.
I Mr.. Samuel b. Witt, one Of Mr..
Pages counsel, said that they had in
tended waving an examination before
the Mayor and having the case tried in
the higher court, where Ire could get
verdict from jury Of twelve intelligent
men; but since the Bowen case tout of
which the Page case grew had been
decided as it had, he would accept the
proposition of Mr.. Hancock.
Judge Clopton said that he had been
quite familiar with criminal cases, both
on the bench and at the bar. but that
this case was the baldcst" he ever
knew of.
The same judgment was entered in
this case as in the Bowen case.
Both of the accused were warmly
received and congratulated on being
bonorably acquitted, and the courtroom
presented quite an affecting seccne.
1t is likely that a libel suit will be
instituted against Mrs. CerSley.