Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1894-04-01
BARNSHAW SENTENCED
he WAS GIVEN EIGHT YEARS IN TIE PEN,
YESTERDAY.
he Notion for New Trial Denied BY Indg'
Jordan-Dr. R. L. LshbroOk Sentenced.
Other Court News

/
orders upon the county Of Wetzsl, were
heard before Judge Jordan in the Grim
lnal Court, yesterday afternoon.
Col. w. w. Arnett opened tho argu-
ment on behalf Of the defense and In
support of the motion. AS q prelimin-
airy four affidsvIts, one from
the defendant himself, setting forth
the conviction, His prior affidavit
for a continuance, the overruling OF the
motion, his efforts to obtain Witnesses in
his behalf, and the failure OF the effort,
except as 10 Martin, his son-in'law,
that the summary summoning OF Mar
tin By the Sheriff OF Wetzel, without
allowing Martin an opportunity to visit
his home, prevented the producing OF
| certain documentary evidence
beneficial TO the defense, Epd
closing with a declaration that
defendantis not guilty Of forging the
order or "even OF touching pen 10 the
paper upon said ORDERS" but admitting
the attempt to utter them and saying ne
did so believing them to be true. The
second affidavit was signed by M. d.
Yost, stating be has known defendant
for thirty years, and that on January
8, in Benwood. Earnshaw showed
him number Of orders or
warrants purporting to be is
sued by the County Court OF Wetzel
county, and particularly an order for
81, 900, payable to w. j. Pruden, and
that the order was then endorsed with
the name of w. j. Pruden. At least
one Of tho orders was also so endorsed.
A third affidavit was by e. Powelson,
who deposed that he had known Earn
shaw for ten years, and that on Janu-
airy Sth, in Benwood, Earnshaw
showed him a number Of orders,
particularly one for $1,000, and that 1t
was endorsed with the name OF w. j.
Pruden. The fourth affidavit was by
DR.. Thos. NJ. Haskins, TO the effect that
on the 10th or 18th OF January, Earn
shaw exhibited to him four or five Wetzel
county orders. and that the 81, 000 order
was endorsed by w. j. Pruden. AL OF
the afiiantss state they could not DO
mistaken.
Col. Arnett then made long and
earnest address to the Court, dwelling
particularly upon the Importance OF the
affidayitS as affecting the evidence on
the trial that when the $1,000 order
was first brought to the Office of Simp-
son 81 HaZlett 1t was not endorsed, but
that Earnshaw took it away one day,
and when he brought ii back the next it
was endorsed w. j. Pruden. He also
dwelt upon the general fall
ure OF the defense to obtain
its witnesses. after reasonable efforts,
through subpenas addressed to the
Sheriff OF Wetzel, as well as by other
means, and pointed out salient facts in
the evidence going to show that Earn
shaw's conduct throughout, in his ef-
forts TO negotiate the paper, all went to
show that he had no personal knowi-
edge that the papers had been forged,
but on the contrary that he believed
them TO be good and all right. He did
not claim that his client had not been
culpable in some regards, but main
tanned that he had not been guilty OF
forgery, as charged in the Indictment.
Col. Arnett said among other things,
upon q point Of the ruling of the Court
on the motion for continuance, that 1t
would perhaps have been the part OF
wisdom in the defense TO have relied
upon the usual means for obtaining wit
nesseS, and they falling, TO have demand
ed a continuance or postponement as
a matter of right, but they had not
taken that course, but on the contrary
had made every possible exertion to
obtain evidence, and those efforts had
resulted in disappointment and failure.
This being true. it was his clear opinion
that the defense was entitled to new
trial and full and fair investigation,
involving all the evidence In existance
favorable to the defense.
The argument by Mr.. Howard for the
State was brief. He said the grounds
for new trial were simply tho grounds
upon which q continuance had been
asked for, with the addition OF the facts
alleged in the new affidavits. The fact
that other witnesses were not present
was not important, because the evidence
those witnesses could give was not ma
terial. or even relevant. AS 10 Martins
documentry evidence, It was the de-
PENDANTS own fault the documents
were not In Court, for he had issued no
subpoena dlCces tecltnl, and when the de-
PENDANT talked with Martin the night
before he came to Wheeling for trial, he
said nothing TO him about papers,
and didn't even tell witness he was
subpenaed. The papers were even
now not in Court in support OF the
pepding motion. AS to the evidence OF
DR.. Haskins and Yost AID Fowler, the
defense knew before the trial all that
-. = o,-st
they had not been summoned. One OF the
atlantis, DR.. Haskins, could have been
in the Court House in twenty minutes
after being summoned, aud before
Howard Hazletrs crOss-examination
was ended, while the other two could
have been brought from Benwood In an
hour. These facts, in the opinion OF
the Prosecuting Attorney, shut the de-
PENDANT out from the benefits OF a new
trial.
Col. Arnett replied briefly to this ar
gument on behalf OF the State, reiterat-
ing some OF his former statements, and
stating that if DR.. Haskins and Messrs.
Yost and Fowler had been subpenaed
before the trial, they could not be put
on unless Mr. Hazlett had happened To
say what ne did about the endorsement.
He thought that matter ought to be re-
garded as a matter OF surprise, and a
corresponding benef. allowed. As to
Martins papers. he would be glad 10
give them to the Court, aud would do
so. il the Court woald take time 70 con-
slider. Justice would not be done Benz.
Earnshsw until he had a new trial and
the benefit OF all his evidence.
The Court in its opinion, went over
the facts. saying the defendants had
not shown diligence, the papers were
=. .nnta-inl and cnnld nnlv shnw II