Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1886-07-01
The People VS.. DR. Coffee.
EDITOR EXposIToR:

EDITOR ENPOSlIOK.
| wish to make a statement through
your paper concerning the case of the
People VS.. DR.. Coffee, and my only rea-
son for so doing is to correct floating
! fiction and falsehOOd sOwn in the neigh
borhood of Fargo.
The testimony for and against DR..
Coffee was as follOws:-l testified that
and my housekeeper came to Fargo to
get $50 bill changed SO that / could
send some to my son. This was Sun
day the 18th June, 1886. got the $50
bin from my housekeeper same morn
ing, she having received five S2Os with
other money from Port Huron, Il. y.
She came to Fargo with me. asked
Doctor the same day to change the bill.
He could not. | then went To Walter
Shiels; he changed it; gave same day
$l5 back to housekeeper. Next day
the DR.. accused me of getting from
him a $40 bill in mistake for a 80 bill
and keeping SIS of his money. This
statement was not denied by the doctor
and proven by two witnesses and con-
stituted the offence, namely: that he,
Doctor. accused me of willfully and
malciously committing the degrading
act of keeping his money. The evidence
~
statement and second, that of Shiels.
Doctor stated that he had got III Fargo
some $40 bills i'm exchange for 80 bills
and showed them in court and also Il ~
bill which he said he had marked with
q private mark. that if he lost them he
could find them. That three weeks
before the time he accused me of get
ting money, he believed he gave me q
$50 bill in mistake for n. - bill, in
making change and had suspected
had got il. That the Sunday | asked
him (the doctor) to change the $50 and
got il from Mr.. Shiel, he went to Shiel
and asked him To- see bill he got from
me. Shiel showed him Il $50 bill,
doctor claiming in his presence
that the folding of bill and private
mark. identified it as the one he gave
me by a mistake. was on it. Mr.. Shiel
states just what the docter says about
the matter. SO far as pointing out a
mark OH bill and claiming that mark
and folding of bill identified it as his.
the doctors.
Here is well defined conflict of
testimony; but human testimony with
out natural and conSistant supports i'll
the known nature of circumstances
| that blends and renews. always Is weak
and unreliable. Is not the doctors
claim that he marked his money, even
~ bill, silly one? Is not the doctors
claim that the $50 ! gave Shiels for
change. had Il particular mark on it and
a certain folding, identifying bill as his,
another silly claim, without exhibiting
to Shiel the other bills having Il like
mark. All the evidence the doctor
showed as to identity of the $50 gave
Shiel being his. was the doctors own
word and without any supports either
rational, consistant or otherwise. On
| the other hand in the nature OF events
of common observation and III the phe-
nomena of conscious guilt and self pro
lection against detection, would |, if
was guilty of getting the doctors
money in the manner charged by him.
have openly called upon him to change
the very bill stolen from him, or would
| have gone to his dear friend Shiel tC
place myself i'll like peril? Or would
have changed the bill at some distance
from place and where detection would
be unfavorable? A candid look at thi:
matter is all that is desired on part OF
my neighbors. The defendant wa:
acquitted and no costs placed on me il
the case. showing that | was justified
in bringing the suit. GRO ROBINSON
Fargo. June "a, 1886.