St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-13
CALLING Them BACK.
Several Witnesses in the Col
lom Case Recalled by the
Defense.
A Big Effort to Get Rid Of the
Word Forgery" in a
Confession. -.
g-fs
Great Unanimity in the Tes-
timony Of the Defendants
Creditors.
"Lord ! Lord +! How This World
Is Given to Lying" Saith
the Wise Man. ~

The first witness in the Colon case
called yesterday morning, or, rather, re-
called, was f. A. Chamberlain, cashier
of the Security bank. Mr.. Chamberlain
said that Mr.. Blaisdell came into the
bank a few days after COLON had made
his statement of July "a, in which he
said that Blaisdell was only on $4,000
of his paper, that he exhibited to Blais-
dell s23,0JO of Collom's paper bearing
his endorsement, and that he said, after
looking at it. that he could not deny any
of the signatures. He also said that he
told Blaisdell that he would be glad to
help him in the matter if the directors
of the bank would allow him to do SO;
that Blaisdell gave him a statement OF
the value of his property. and agreed
to take care of the COllOm- Blaisdell
paper, if it did not exceed SfOO,OOO; thar
when he found it exceeded Sl5O.OOO he
seemed to be disappointed.
A dispute arose over the admission OF
the original of this statement as evil
dence, and Judge Hooker reserved his
decision. Continuing, MIR. Chamber
lain said: IL first heard an intimatlon
that forgery had been committed Mon
dav, Aug. 5, at Davis IL Farnam's Of
fee. l was sent for by Mr.. Davis: e.
&. Curtiss was there. He examined the
paper held by the bank, Eustis Broth
erS, Peck, Rupert and others, and pro.
nOunced some of it to be genuine aud
some TO be forged. Tuesday he exam.
ined Exhibit A. and said that 1t and
some other notes were forged"
The defense offered to prove by the
witness that Blaisdell had waived pro-
test on seven of the notes which Curtiss
had pronounced to be forgerleS,
but the testimony was ruled
out. The statement made by Mr..
Blaisdell showed that he estimated his
property as being worth Sl.4Sl $50 81.
On crOSS-examinatiOn the witness SAID
it was about the last OF July that he
found out that there was $4,000 OF the
CoIlOm-Blaisdell paper out; that. he
seemed to be surprised; that about
Aug. 9 Blaisdell toll him there must be
something wrong, and that he had
looked after the matter on account OF
the interest he felt for Blaisdell. Z. j.
lockwood, Collom's partner, was re-
called, and said that Biaisdeli came into
their office on June 25, and asked Col
lOm to 20 out to the lake with him on
the following day; also, that Blasdell
came into their office on Nov. 15, and
asked where be should go TO waive pro-
test on five notes. The court then adj
journed until 2 p. IN. j. A. Pool was
recalled in the afternoon by the prose
cutiOn for crOSS-eXaminatiOn. He re-
peated his story of seeing Blaisdell in
COllom's Office on June Is. He was
asked if he said to ID. B. Jones on or
about Aug. 10 that ne was in COllOm's
office when Blaisdell Endorsed note,
but that he did not see the amount of
the note, but that he might have seen
it. He answered in the negative.
snow, Mr.. Pool" said MIR. Yelling
ton, Ibid not Mr.. Jones say to you last
week, Pool, you have not been
on the witness stand in the COLON case
yet and did you not ask him if he re-
membered a conversation you had with
him about your visit to Collom's office
Oh June 2S?''
Eyes, sir"
"Did you not request him not to say
anything about it. and did he not say
that he had already done so?''
Eyes. SIR
"Did you at any time claim to Jones
that you had seen Blaisdell indOrse
notes in blank in COllOm'S officer"
Yes, SIR"
'.Did you at any time tell him that you
had seen more than one?'
Eyes. SIR"
On cross-examination Mr.. Pool gave
as his reason for requesting Jones to
saw nothing about the conversation, that
there was some question about the val
idity of the COLON paper, aud that
Jones kept throwing it up to hin.
MIR. lockwood was again recalled. and
testified that there were two COllOm-
Blaisdell notes due at the Security bank
on Oct. 30, 1883. and that he went after
Mr.. Blaisdell to waive prOte st, which he
did. On cross-examination he testified
that he mad partially refreshed his MEM
Ory of the transaction by reference to
some memoranda. A. ii. Num- was
called to corroborate COllOm's testimony
as to Blalsdell indorsing note in the
defendants office on July l. 1889, but
his testimony was objected to as i'm
material. and the objection WAS sus-
tanned. Julius Schultz was called to
prove that Blaisdell Endorsed number
of notes in COllom's Office on July 8, but
he was also ruled out. c. G. Rupert
was called to contradict the testimony
of Davis and Farnam. that COLON. in
his confession. usedaAhe words "for-
gerry" or forged" tie said he saw
w. 3. Anderson come out of Davis
office, and that he said COLON had con-
fessed to forgery, and that he (Ander-
SOM had been at work on the case for
two days. He also cOntradicted the
testimony of Detective Rice that COLON
said he had destroyed the genuine notes
and substituted bogus ones. He also
denied saying to COLON on that occa-
~ NH dn think
so much to blame as some Others:" that
COLON asked him whom he referred
to: that he replied Schultz" and
that COLON said she must not
antagonize Schultz. as he holds great
deal of the paper" He said that
Schutte's name was not mentioned in
that connection, but that somebody said
it would be good thing if Schultz
could be found, as he had negotiated a
great deal of the paper and would know
who held it, whereupon he telephoned
for Mr.. Schultz, but was unable to find
him. He said proposition to settle at
80 cents on the dollar was made by
either Anderson or Dav s. The witness
then went on to descfioe what occurred
at Davis & Farnham'S Office on the
evening of Aug. 6. which did not differ
materially from CollOm's testimony, but
contradicted that of Detective Rice;
that Rice, Colon and Frank Eustis
stayed at his house that night, and that
he came down town the next morning
with COLON and Rice. He said that he
held $500 of the Collom-Blaisdell
paper. Frank Eustis was sworn and
testified mainly as Robert did, and de-
MED that he SAID to Mr.. Rice that Col
lOm had not only forged Mr.. Blaisdell's
name but also that of Josiah Thompson
Jr.. his brother-in-law. He said that his