Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1894-03-18

that Earnshaw. il be entered into an
agreement to sell the orders, did tot
know that they were forged. Why
should he represent himself 10 Simpson
& Hazlett as w. ]. Pruden II he did not
know them TO be forged? The fact that
Earnshaw tried 10 destroy the order
proves conclusively that be knew
the order was forged one.
Credible witnesses testify that when
EarnshaW presented the order
to Simpson & HaElstt on Tuesday there
was no Endorsement on it, and that
when be returned 10 on Wednesday
Pruden's name was on H. Defendant
testifes that during that time the order
was not out OF his possession. Who
then indorSed Pruden's name on the or
der. No matter whether Earnshaw
had a confederate or not the evidences
shows him 10 be guilty, whatever con-
nsction anyone else may have had with
the matter.
Col. .Arnett then began his argument
for the defense. BE repeated his state
ment that II the forgery was not com
mitted In Ohio county, this jury could
not find the defendant guilty OF forgery,
pointing out what might be taken by
the jury as evidence that the crime vas
committed In AgiVen county. lie dis.
missed the other technical question
raised by Mr. Post, with the assertion
that IL was OF a similar nature. He
quoted from the Code the punishment
for forgery or uttering forged paper
"knowing 10 TO be forged" To hnd
Earnshaw guilty the jury must fnd that
he forged the paper and forged Il In
this county or TO show that be attempt
ed 20 utter the forgery, knowing 10 20 be
forged. The defendant might be found
guilty of attempting to obtain money
under false pretenses, but be was not
indicted for this and could not uader
the evidence In this trial be found gull
" or anything more.
Col. Arnett continued 20 speak until
after three O'clock. making very
strong argument, the main purpose Of
which was 20 create and maintain
general doubt as TO the guilt OF the de-
fendant He laid great stress upon the
story of Martin, as zorro boratlng Earn
shaw, as contrasted with the single and
simple denial Of McCasKey. He accounted
for EarnshaW's attempt 60 destroy the
order by his knowledge that he was at
tempting 10 obtain money under false
pretenses-sometning OF which he was
undoubtedly guilty, but for which he
had not been indicted.
Mr. Howard, closing for the State, be-
gan his address 81 twenty minutes after
three o'clock, and made = most vigorous
and energetic exposition OF the States
case. Before commencing he handed
the orders IN evidence 10 the jury for
examination by them. He commenced
by saying that although IL was possible
10 might be his duty 10 Try the case OF ~
State v. ]. $. McCaskey-that ca
was not vet on trial. 10 was an old
threadbare trick OF the legal proie
10 endeaYar 20 have the jury fofges tn6
case at bar aud try somebody else; and
that had been attempted here. IL was
not for the speaker 90 express 20 the
jury before him any opinion OF the guilt
or innocence OF j. =. McCaskeY, but he
would devote his attention wholly %
Benz. EarnshaW, who was the person on
trial. That Earnshaw was guilty Of
crime has admitted even by the defense,
is part Of their defense, but In admit
ting IL they plead that IL was not the
crime he was indicted for. Ordinarily
persons on trial are presumed 10 be In
noceut, but At the very outset this do
fense had admitted guilt, aud that ALL
mission showed, 40 the least, that be
was guilty OF crime for which be might
have been Just as easily indicted as he
was for forging and attempting 70 utter
forged paper. Mr. Howard then said
he would strike from tho case every
scrap and particle OF evidence showing
where and when and by whom the face
Of the paper vas written, and would
rest his case upon the proposition thai
the defendant forged the name Of w }.
Pruden on the back OF H. Stating
this proposition with great force, hr.
Howard then proceeded % recount tho
evidence that Mr. Howard Hazlett had
the order on a Tuesday without indorse
ment gave II back 10 Earnshaw, and
on Wednesday morning 10 was endorsed
w. j. Pruden" He thought the de-
fendant had convicted himself OF forf-
log that name out Of his own mouth,
for Chief McNlchol, Howard Hazlett
and d. G.. Morgan heard him confess
bis guilt and say OF the enforcement.
That IS my signature; / wrote IT,"
Now. 10 save bis liberty, be says be
dldu't write t. 10 didnt care
who wrote the face OF the order or
when or where 10 was written; but be
did Insist that the defendant bad
guilty knowledge that 10 was forged
and did forge she enforcement That
settled the first count OF the Indictment
He then proceeded 20 the second count,
and held that IN what Earn
shaw said. that be never put q.
pen 70 the order, was true. yet he was
guilty OF the second couht, because be
had guilty knowledge that the orders
were forged. Referring 70 the theory
OF defsnse, he said be was familiar with
some OF Col. Arnett's Gtbis, and with
some OF bis ingenlous defonsos on the
line OF self-defenss-hs recalled iome
Of his theories before jury, and
among them q theory Of self-defense on
behalf OF a nan who shot another ia
the back while running away from tbe
victim, but the present defenfe was per-
b haps the most himsy Of then at.
hr. Howard spoke until quarter af-
ter four o'clock, and then the instruc-
tlons were read. and the lury went out
az 4.s0 o'clock. At 5:i5 o'clock ths jury
seBtl into Court for the thFeo orders. and
they we're sent % the jury room.
At 5:25 o'clock the jury cane inc
Court and returned q verdict Of guilty
as charged IN the Indictment Col
Arnett a. once asked that the jury be
PEELED, and it was done, al answering
In the affirmative. The jury was Ihen
discharged. A motion 70 SET aside she
verdict was then made.
TIE Court-Ths Court is ready y
pass up0n 10 now.