The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1892-10-20
AN ABLE D0CUMEN
Full Report Of Judge Taylor's
Charge
To the Jury in the Snyder
Albright Case.
The Paper a Fair and Impartial
One,
Showing Careful Preparation by
the Learned Jurist.
The Case Given in the Hands Of the Jury
For Their Deiiberation at 8 O'Clock This

The Case Given in the Hands Of the Jury
For Their Deiiberation at 8 O'clock This
Morning.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY The plead
inRs in this case which raise the issues you
are called upon to try are brief.
The suit 10 upon an alleged promissory
note for $50, 900, dated March 81, 1891, due
in ten days from date, with interest at
per cent.
This alleged promissory note plaintiff
claims the defendant executed and deliy~
cred to him on that date.
To this claim of plaintiff, and to this ais
legged promissory note the defendant says
fret, said note 10 without consider alton.
And for further defense he says be de-
nies that he ever executed or delivered
| the note in suit, and he denies all the ais
legations in plaintiffs petition.
This is, In brief, the answer of the de-
| fendant.
To this answer the plaintiff replies, de-
| nying that said promissory note Is without
| consideration.
The burden Of proof Is upon the plain.
tiff to satisfy you by preponderance Of
the evidence that the defendant executed
and delivered the note in controversy.
| II seems that the courts of higher resort
| In this jurisdiction have settled the law
for this court on the question of the bur-
| den of proof as to the consideration of
been adenial of the execution and deliv.
| cry OF the note sued on, and plea OF want
| Of consideration, as in the case at bar.
therefore. without doubt or hesitation, L,
say to you that the burden OF proof is upon
1 the plaintiff to satisfy you by a preponder.
ance of the evidence that the note in con.
troversy is based upon some valid and
| legal consideration. This burden does
not shift, but remains upon the plaintiff
throughout the case; and he 10 only enu,
tied to recover when he so establishes his
i case by the preponderance of the evidence,
Let me first call your attention to the
second defense; for, IL the defendant did
not execute and deliver the note in suit,
there can be no recovery In this action.
To this issue much of the testimony To
which you have listened so long, carefully
and patiently has been directed.
1t is claimed by the plaintiff that this
note was given to him by the defendant
in settlement of a claim plaintiff had, or
honestly believed he had, against the de-
fendant for damages, because of the de-
fendants criminal conversation with
plaintiffs wife, and the consequent alien
alton of her affections from him, and the
consequent modification and sense OF
shame OF the plaintiff.
Defendant not only denies that he exes
cuted and delivered this note, but he
denies that he debauched or seduced
plaintiffs wife or that he ever made any
4
tiff.
Two papers, which it is claimed by
plaintiff we're executed at the same time
to wit--the note in suit, and paper called
during the progress of the trial, "a confes
| sion," have been introduced in evidence
These papers contain the alleged sigma,
lures of the defendant, which the defend
ant says are not genuine.
There have been admitted
in evidence during. the. progress
OF the trial, large number of the sigma
lures of the defendant which are admitted
to be genuine, as standards of comparison
with these disputed signatures; some
made about the time of the date of these
disputed signatures. and others at differ.
ent times. Both the plaintiff and the
defendant introduced q large number OF
these admitted signatures.
As bearing npon the genuineness OF
these disputed signatures, a number OF
expert witnesses have been called on both
sides, who have compared the disputed
signatures with the admitted signatures
and given an opinion for or against the
genuineness of the signature to the note
and also of the signature to the alleged
confession.
Others acquainted with the defendant,s
signature by reason of seeing it frequently
in business transactions in which they
were concerned, or of having seen dc
fendant write his name, have also given
an opinion as to whether the signature ID
or 10 not genuine. These are all opinions
OF witnesses, and entitled to more or less
weight as the witness may have shown
more or less capacity to give an opinion
on comparing the signatures in dispute
with the signatures admitted 10 be gen
uine.
All this testimony you will carefully
consider and weigh, in determninl
whether or not the signature to the note
In suit is the signature of the defendant
For II Is the genuineness of the signature
to the note that we have especially to dec
with.
In addition to this class of testimony
you have the testimony of the plaintiff al
TO what he claims as to the execution anC
delivery of the note, and you have the
testimony of the defendant in denial.
Briefly the plaintiff claims, on this sub,
ject, and you will remember all the testi.
mony, do not desire, nor do / think |
my duty to call your attention to 1t in de-
tail, that a short time before the data o.
this note he received Information by ar
anonymous letter that the defendant hat
been guilty OF criminal conversation viii
his (plaintitl's) wife. That soon after he
received such information, and being sat,
isfled OF the defendants guilt from this
Information and other sources, he wrote
defendant, on February 81, 1891, charging
him with such misconduct, and demand
ING settlement. That O number OF letters
passed between them and a number ot
interviews were had between them, in
regard to such charges, and such settle.
ment, in one of which he claims he de.
manded OF the defendant thirty thousanC
doiiars, and that the defendant asked hin
IL ne would not take twenty thousand
The plaintiff claims that the negotia tions
continued until finally, on March 21st
| 1891, an agreement was reached, which
illuminated in the giving of the note In
suit, and the alleged letter of confession
The letters have just referred to have
| been introduced in evidence, and have
been read to you. You will haue them
The defendant denies that 'yS he was
guilty of any improper relations with
plaintiffs wife, and he denies that he
! made any settlement with plaintiff In re-
gard to such charge, and he denies that
ne signed either the note or the letter
OF confession. He denies that plaintiff
demanded OF him thirty thousand dollars
or any other specific sum. He denies that
he asked the plaintiff IL he would take
twenty thousand dollars. He admits the
receipt OF certain letters from plaintiff In
| regard to such charge, and the sending of
letters In reply to some of them, and to
certain interviews between himself and
the plaintiff in regard to such matter. He
claims that on the day of the date of the
note OF the controversy he signed two
letters OF statements for plaintiff, which
piaintin desired to send to his Wife,s
father and to his own mother. and he
claims that these letters or statements
were all signed at that time, or at any
other time, for plaintiff.
In determining whether or not the de-
PENDANT gave the note sued upon In this
case, you should also look TO the circum-
stances surrounding the parties at the
time, including all that was said and done
py them, and the reaeonahleness of the