Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-03-16

/ can't see that that makes difference.
/ ask You Honor 10 remember also that
be has been in trouble, and is not
anxious to come here.
O. Repeated A.-Well, Mr..
Martin and had good deal Of talk,
and Mr. Martin told me be, as a wit
ness, would be material to the case.
didn't 60 into details. Col. Arnett--
Oh, tell him be brought you the bonds.
The Court SAYS you must. Ale
did.
Q.-Answer the question. I object
to counsel coaching him. Answer the
question. Alive me the question.
Q.-Tell the Court what the witness
told you about this case, and about what
he knew about il? A.-Martin told me
be knew Of the origin of the bonds
which 1 knew before he told me-and he
knew Of the origin of the bonds, and
that did not forge them.
Q.-Is that all? A.-Martin expected
to tell
Q.-Is that all you expected to prove?
A.-No-I can't tell-but / expect him
to do that
Q.-You expect him to say he bought
the forged orders and gave then to youP
A.-Yes.
O.-And you knew Of theF origin be-
fore be told you? A.-NO.
Q.-Didn't you say so moment ago?
A.-No, I said that he knew it before
be came to me.
O.-Have you seen him and talked to
him? A.-Yes.
Q.-Yesterday, at your house? A
Yes.
B.-And he is not here tO-day9 A
No.
Odd understand you to say that
Martin knew who forged the orders?
A.-No.
Q.-What did you say? Al said
Martin delivered the orders to me and
1 expect to show by him where they
came from.
Q.-Do you expect to prove by him
who wrote them? A.-No. I expect
to prove he gave them to me.
O.-You talked to him about the mat
ter yesterday? Ayes; but only about
getting up here.
Q.-Has he told you who wrote the
orders? Al don't like to answer,
but II I have To-
Col. Arnett-I don't think that is a
proper question.
The Court--Do you refuse to answer?
EarnshaW--No, sir. l said 1 didn't
like TO answer unless I had to.
O.-Has Martin told you who wrote
the orders? objection; oyerruled. A.
Yes.
Q-Has be told you when and where?
1Objection; overruled. A.-Yes.
Q.-Has be told you-Iobjection. ]
Col. Arnett-If the Court expects TO in
volve any one else It is unfair to tell
where the orders came from.
The Court-The Court knows of no
party involved at present but this de-
fendant and this case, and it IS for him
to make a proper case for continuance,
under the rules.
A. 1By witness i understand from
Mr.. Martin he knows by whom the
orders were written, and when and
where.
Q.-Do you further understand whore
the blanks came from? A.-NO.
O.-Does be know who procured the
blaaks9 A.--NO.
Q.--And YOU have said the orders you
are charged with attempting 10 utter or
uttering were given to you by Mr.. Mar
tin? A.-They came through his hands.
Q.-To you? A.-Yes.
Q-And that you talked to him yes
terday? A.-Yesterday morning.
O.-And you made no effort TO bring
him here, other than what you told Of?
Al asked him to come, If possible,
and he SAID his wife was sick. BE came
to my house for his mother-in-law to 60
over, and she was sick herself. He left
early yesterday morning, and said he
didn't expect he could possibly come.
Q.-Isn't It true that whom you were
here and entered into a bond, you then
knew everything about Martin, and the
other witnesses named in the affidavit,
that you know now? A.-No, 1 can't
say that did.
O.-What have you learned since?
A.-Quite lot from Martin and from
other witnesses, didn't think OF then
witnesses acquainted with my
writing, etc.
Q.-Yo knew that as we'll when you
were released on bail as now? Al
didn't think of it.
O.-But you knew Of it, whether you
thought Of it or not? A.-Yes.
Q.-And you didn't give the names or
your witnesses to your counsel until
Friday? A.-No.
O.-And didn't come here on the day
the grand jury met? A.-No.
O.-Yet you knew when you we're in
dicted? A.-Only when got the Col
onePs letter. l honestly did not know
until I heard from the Colonel, and 1
didn't know before, whether the grand
jury met on Tuesday, March 5th, or the
Tuesday following.
After some further questioning, Of
minor Importance, the examination was
closed. and Col. Arnett proceeded TO
make his argument on the motion,
claiming that there ought TO be a con-
tinuance, or at least a postponenent,
and saving his client had been frank in
his answers.
Mr.. Howard replied for the State,
claiming that the witness had not been
frank. but extremely reluctant to en-
tighten the Court; claiming that Martin
was not material witness for the de-
Tense, but that he might have been
summoned for the State, OF so little in
portance was his evidence 10 the de-
Tense.
Col. Arnett closed the debate, reiter-
ating aud charging upon what he had
said at the opening, and stating further
that from the first arrest OF bis client
he had been bounded by the press and
by a cer'ljn element, who were bent
upon ID uriug MIN.
In delivering its opinion upon the
motion, the Court said it had no knowl-
edge that the press or any one else had