Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-09-26
EpES FOUND GUILTY.
MS PUNISHMENT FIXED At TWO
YEARS IN TIE PeN,TENTiARv.
rhe Three FORGED and Dishcnored Checks
In Court--uotcresting Testimony
Of witnesses and Experts

on the charge Of passing forged checkfor
S57 on the Eigenbrun Clothing COMPANY
in this city has engaged the attention OF
the Hastings Court all day. The accused
il nAuH connected with some OF the best
families in Southside Virginia. and this
fact connected with the developments
during the trial impaired much interest To
the case.
HISTORY or IuE CASE.
II was on the 10th day 81 last April that
young Epcs entered 'he store OF the
E,cenbrun Company, purchased suit OF
clothes. and rendered IN payment check
for Ss7 drawn to his order on the INST Ma
tional Bank If Roanoke by }. {: Jones
Co. The check was taken. rs the Young
man had had previous dealings with the
Arm. The difference between the amount
OF the purchase and that OF the check-
about $S2--waS given to Epcs ana tne
check was deposited for collection. In
dine coarse OF mail II was returned
protested with the reason assigned
that j. G.. Jones & Co. had no
money IN the Roanoke bank. For
some time the Eigeuhrun Company
endeavored TO communicate with Epes.
but they could get no response to thrlr
letters. II was finally ascertained that he
was NJ ms homo in NottOvay, and an officer
The prisoner stated To the officer that on
the night Of April eth. while waiting at the
Continental Hotel III Roanoke for the east
bound tram be sold his watch 90 stranger
for SEQ. He was rsaid - in cash and the
check III question for S57. The stranger
represented himself as citizen oi foa-
noke and said that anybody IN that city
would cash the check. The hour OF the
Transaction beng late Epcs SAYS he put
the check in his POCKET aud thought no
more of II until he reached petersburg,
and on the following day. without any
doubt Of Tia commences. gave II 10 the
EiScnbrun Company.
STRENGTHENING THY CHAIN.
These facts having BEEN established ny
tie prosecution the Commonwealth : At
tornoy introduced ex-senator II. =. front,
of Roanoke, a. the next witness Mr..
Trou, said that he was the active pro'i-
don't of the First National Bank OF Roa-
noke. and that he frequently acted as
cashier The firm of j. {. Jones Co..
whose signature Was attacheito the check.
formerly kept IN account at his bank. but
Mr.. Jones died IN November, 1871, and the
accounts of the firm were soon after closed.
lie was familiar with the writing OF the
firm, and declared that the signature 10
the check was not theirs. A far as he
knew no one was authorized to sign the
name of the firm.
Mir. W. X Andrews. Of Roanoke, stated
that be IL the administrator of j. 4. Jones
x Co.'S estate; that no one was authorized
the sign the name OF the firm; that there
is no other J. 4. Jones Il Co. III Roanoke:
that as soon as he Qualified a. adnnnistra-
tor he changed the account from the First
National To the Exchange National Bank,
and that the business Is not yet wound up.
ESTABLISHING GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.
A. a, IL q nf
new placed Mr. II. j. Sydnor. II merchant AZ
Amelia Courthouse. on the stand. and an
nounced 10 the Court that the questions he
intended TO ask might be objected To by
the defence. The jury were thcreupon
taken from the room IN order that the
Cour, might decide whether the proposed
evidence should be admitted. The Com
monwealth's Attorney then produced what,
he said. he would prove was forged check
for $50. passed by the prisoner upon MIR.
Sydnor. bis intention, he said. was 10
show that the prisoner bad guilty know
ledge as TO the matter under considerations
THIS check bore date June II. 1871. and
was drawn on the FIRST National Bank OF
Richmond To the order of T.. ". Epes bv
j. u. Bibb 4 Co. II WIS numbered W.
Counsel for the prisoner, MIR. William
Bernard. of NOttoway. strenuously OBJ
jected TO this testimony on the ground
that the two offences w'r" too Tar i"-
moved from each other; that l's admls-
zion would affect the character 81 the prl-
eoner. which the Commonwealth had 10
rlcht 10 DO unless the gu stiOn of charac-
TER were introduced by III" defence. The
Court, after argument. decided the evl-
dence to be admissible, tn difference OF
sixtv DAYS between the two alleged OF
fences not being too far apart. Inc Court
likened the case 10 one of recent posses
sion.
. L.. \ hor b,t ,rfg on
or. with whom he had some acquaintance.
came into his store at Amelia Courthouse
and asked him 10 cash a cheek: that ne
did not have the money To do 50 ~ tie
tune: that he subsequently came again
with the check for = ana he gave HIM
the money. Epes endorsed the check IN
his presence (as he had endorsed the check
gwen 10 the IlgenbIun Company Inc
check was seLt on for collection and was
returned unpaid--the drawers having no
money III the Richmond bank.
CHECK No. 3.
T.. l.. Bethel. a colored barber of Farm
vile. was next put on the witness-stand.
He testitied tat Epcs came into his shop
on the Sd Of August remarklng hat he
wanted 10 get "a shave and nave his halr
cut. And. by the way he added, l
want YOU to cash "a check for me. ms
was between and . O'clock in the morn
10 cash the check. but told the prisoner
that the bank lust across the street would
be orcp at O'Clock and he could get
the none there. Epes went out OF
the shop. bu; returned few minutes be
fore O'Clock with "a check drawn u ms
order on the CIIalncrcial Bank OF Dan
vile. signed 10y &. j. smith. The witness
took the check across to the bank. en-
do,sed IT, and brought the amount SlD
back 10 Epes, who said he believed he
would not he shaved until the next day.
This check was 'aut on for collection and
returned IKE the otheis-unpaid.
TxIERTs on THE STAND.
MIR. II. g. Burnett. cashier OF the First
National BanE. was put upon the stand "A
an expert. The endorsement of Epe-s
name on the three checks having been
proved witness was asked e. state whether
The same name ON the face of IA" checks
were written 10y the same persoL. liz an-
swe- was that i'll ms opinion they we're
There was q striking similarity m the
characteristics of the wrltlrs and IN the
formation Of some of the letters. although
there was an apparent attempt ~ disguise.
No matter how well trained hc MAY be III
writing. he Is apt TO betray himself ~
some characteristics, and III tins lustanc"
he thought the similarity III the writing
wa decided.
Sir. George ]. Seay, teller ofthe Peters
burr savings Bank. who wa not present
when MIR. Burnett testified. Yet cOrrobo-
rated his testimony n every respect.
Taking the circumstances of the different
dates at which the checks were written,
the different years and different inks
used, he was OF opinion that the writing
was done by the same person. lie pointed
out the same simllarities mentioned by
Er Burnett.
II was decided not TO put the accused on
the stand.
No such names as J. ID. Bib 4 Co. and
G. J. Smth could be established by wit
pesses.
The check cashed by the colored barber
at Farmvile was made PAYABLE to the or
der of l.. Nj. Epes, and was 30 endorsed by
Lpes.
GUILTY AND TWO yEAEs.
When court met this afternoon several
hours were spent III the argument Of IN
struciions by the counsel. The case was
given 10 the jury al 1880 O'clock, and after
an absence Of ten minutes they brought
in q verdict Of guilty" and fixed his
term of ifppr.SOumeuf M two wears IN the