The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-10-24

notos The Commonwealths Attorney must
/ move that the accused knew at the time.
| when he issued the instrument. that it was
forged The best evidence 10 attain this pur-
pose would be 10 show that the accused ut
/ tered at different times notes which he knew
! 10 oe false. As 20 tho remote time the de-
| cislon was entirely at the discretion Of the
Court Under the authorities cited by tho
Commemorative Attorney | think that the
evidence il admissible
| Nr. Carter took an exception TO the ruling
and IL was understood that the same objection
would apply 10 similar evidence which
should be brought out by other witnesses
The jury was then recalled and the pro-
ceeiings 81 the trial were taken up again oy
! Commonwealth Attorney Smith VINO caiied
UP once more Mr. Samuel ID. Wallace. tho
cashier OF the Cit zens' Bank.
Mr.. WALLACE AGAIN
Mr.. Wallace. after taking the stand, stated
| that he was cashier Of the Cltizens BANK ana
1 knew the prisoner Tor several years lie ne
| gofiated a note for 81 90 dated August p.
! 1890 for sixty days due October 22d. Endorsed
/ los Dashiell paid August q. 1891. either day
or two Days after the arrest.
To a question asked by tho Court wit
i ness stated that during the time from Au-
/ gust %. 1880 the bank held the note among
/ the suspended papers. lie never notified
! ludwig. be ause it was the custom TO notify
! the ind0rser only when the maker of the note
/ lived out OF town.
/ On crosse examination witness stated that
/ on the day alter tie arrest. or "a day later.
be demanded payment Of the note. winch
lie received. The payment had been delayed
AZ Mr. Dashiell stated. because he was wait
ing for the settlement of the estate. Tho
interest on the note rs paid by Mr. Dasheh
was $50.
Nr. r.. NJ. Smith. cashier Of the Security
] d.. oil
years. The accused negotiated note OF Dir.
j. l.. Ludwig IN April, 1891. for 700 IL was
Cue on June 9TH but was not paid until June
I I'D. The note went 10 protest. and the
indorser. Mr. Dashiel. was notified The
note was dated April T., 1891
Mr. Mann 5. Quarles. cashier of the Plan
tiers National Bank was the next witness.
lie stated that be knew Mr.. Dashieu, who
had negotiated three ties 1T his bank The
first one for $50. was dated October 2. 1890,
aud Endorsed by 1lT. DashielI. Il was dis
counted on October 10Th and due December
81. 1870. IL WAS renewed on January 2 1921.
The second note Tor $500 was dated January
3. 1871. and was for thirty days. il became due
on ebiuary 2d and was paid after maturity
on February 18th.
Tho third motto was dated Febuary 3, 1891
IL was FOR 500 and discounted on February
10Th. IL was for siAty DAYS and became due
April eth 9Th and WAS paid on maturity TIE
two latter notes seemed TO be renewals oil the
original one.
On cross examination witness stated to
Captain w Sc that he thought the proceeds OF
the renewed notes were used % pay for the
original note. Mr. Dashiell paid the discount
and received the proceeds OF the notes.
Mr.. sINroS
8lr. j. ". Sinton, cashier of the City Bank,
was the next witness. When asked by Mr..
Smith if he had negotiated a note signed by
Mr. Ludwig for $500, which was dated Octo-
Der 4. 1850. he replied IN the negative. He
never held any note of Mr.. Ludwig which
note OF MI Ludwig which lie ever held was
one deposited by Mrs. Bellenot.
The Court decided that the testimony Of the
witness Was irrelevant and not evidence. He
was told to stand aside, and his testimony
ruled ont.
At this iuncture a short recess was taken 10
await tho arrival Of some witnesses. At the
suggestion OF the Court Deputy Sergeant fer-
neYhOugh took the Jury out to get some fresh
air.
After The recess Mrs. Bellenot was called to
the stand Witness stated she knew Mr.. Da-
smell for a long time. She held one Of Lud-
Wig s. notes for 500. which she got from BlT
Dashiell. Witness was shown the note which
she identified. The note was dated July 3,
1871.
On cToss-exanlinatiOn witness stated that
she discounted the note on July sd. She first
utAIU Alhh AAc upkt Whb fAtottOAfu n44tu
Mr. Leroy J.. Brown came 70 her store and
saw the name of Dir. Ludwig on her bank
book
Mr.. n W. Nelson was the next witness He
knew Mr.. ashiell for long time He held
a note of j. l.. Ludwig for 5000, dated Octo-
Der e. u.s. @, which be- me due January ;, 1921.
lie depOs ted the note IA the City bank. Mr.
ashieil paid the note soon after he left the
Browns and a long time before his arrest.
Witness then surrendered the note. II was
long before the arrest.
LUDWIG AGAIN.
Mr.. J. l.. Ludwig was recalled 10y the prose
cuton. He stated that he aid not execute
the note for $500 which Mrs. Bellenot bought
O. Mr. lash.ell. When shown the note he
said be did not sign II. and did not receive
the proceeds of the note. He also denie
having signed the notes which were held by
Messrs smith. rintOn, G. Il trles. Nelson and
Wallace to which the several parties had
testified.
On cross-examination witness stated that
on July r. ISL Le was in Petersburg. He
was ID edmond on june -. 1891. lie had
no recollection. but might then have given a
note tor o.. He had no recollection. but
mi ht ave given note at that time for
ninety days. Dir. Dashiell sent him note
for 500 on June 9TH which ran for six
months. He had considerable correspon
deuce with Mr. Dashiell lie PRODUCT all
the letters IN MS 20 session, while he de-
stroyed some of his letters early ina the year.
lie selected what he thou ut would be Of
value 70 him in regard 10 financial matters.
The others he destroyed. HIS brother. j. A.
Lu3wig. stopping at present at Mr..
Browns house
Mr.. S.ntou. when called back. stated that
tie note deposited by Mr. Nelson was dated
October T. 3D. II Was OF ninety days and
matured on January b, 1891. Witness was
about 10 state when the note was withdrawn.
but counsel Tor the defense 90 ected
here was some more delay owing % the
absence Of MesSrs Joplin OF tho First Va
tional Bank and Boudar of the Merchants
Bank.
In the meantime Mr. Wallace identified
tho .l0ll note o. Mr. Ludwig which bad
been discounted by the Citizens Bank for
hlT. Dasulel.
KNEW THE HANDWRITING.
When questioned by Mr.. Garter he stated
that be knew Mr.. Ludwig handwriting. He
WAS shown the 81. 50uOte claimed TO be forged
and stated that il 1t had been presented ~
him ly "A reputable person he would have dis
counted IT, lie believed the Signature 20 be
genuine. He had been an officer OF bank
Tor fourteen years and had some knowledge
of handwritings for II was the main duty OF
bank o.hcials TO become familiar with
signatures. Witness was then tod 10
com arc the signature OF the ,Z50 note with
sieuatu es 10 letters which had been admitted
bv ludwig 20 be genuine. lie thought tie
Signature Of the noe looked more Ike that OF
FtfF of hHa