The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-18

ms pectlon. 1ilS IL " 70 " nSAi y -.
is in possession the presumption is
AGAINST that side. Is there any other
| Nsi,rewd Main street merchant OF whose
| handwriting there is not scrap IN ex'
| .istence. II there aresome OF these letters
| WHY don't you bring them mere? There
are some copy. books produced, but
none of the letters were written by Mr.
Reilly.
Reiliy's dictation.5was piece OF Haoso.
lutte driyel." It began ~ have none OF
your late letters to reply to-" and shows
the absolute imbecility OF the alleged
mind that attempted to construct 1t.
The witness, O'Neiii, says that Mr..
Reilly was not really carrying on the
business, but he was allowed to think
so. He would sit at his desk and write
letters, which would be deciphered, II
possible, and would find the boys had
been attending to business. The W.T.
ness, O'Neill, showed ietters about Chl,
cage real estate to the sons, John and
James. It was shown that Parks was
really engaged 10 attend to the Chicago
real estate By James. O'Neill said the
boys never said anything OF their
fathers imbecility or questioned his
ability. Yet the witness said this
within foot of letter written to
Parks by James in which he says his
father .'does not grasp the idea OF the
sub blocks" about Chicago real estate
matters. The attorney general says
James was not very respectful 10 MS
father. What ii he wasn't?
THAT is NOT THE QUESTION
You are sworn to try. Ii it was the
other side couldn't get along much bet
ter than on the question at issue. The
attorney general complained James
called mis- father "the old gentleman.
Yet the attorney general throughout
his speech calls him by the same term.
One letter was shown which Harry
Zane wrote on the typewriter, yet the
other side do not bring in that young
man to testify who dictated 1t.
He referred to the meeting OF the ditna
Insurance Company. mir. Reilly heard
a statement read by the secretary, Mr.
Smith, which related that m assess
ment must be levied. This latter state
ment was not queer-that an assess
mont must be made. Did anyone else
cal! for dividend? No, indeedl They
call an assessment in Wall street an
Irish dividend" That was. perhaPs
the kind of dividend Mr.. Reilly
wanted.
He spoke of Mr.. Reilly voting against
his ki1sman, Mr. Zane, and Mt Riley
This delicacy did not strike MIR. Reilly
while he was eIechoneenns for hIs reia-
tive. This explanation of such an I'M
becilic transaction does not explain.
AS to tie reason Mr.. Reilly borrowed
5000 when he had $50, 900 in bank, he
suggested it was perhaps his sense OF
"delicacy" He saw it since Mr.. Rley's
argument of Mr.. Reiliy's dclicacy. Yet
this sense OF delicacy left him as quick
as the other when his son Thomas ex-
plnined to him he was @ TOOL Tor borrow
ing when he had money in the bank.
Mr. Hubbard referred to the Norton
property purchase on the South Side,
and said it SCOT about" that Mr.. Reilly
had peculiar ideas rs to the value OF
property, and consequently the real es-
tate man sold him property for $500
that could have been purchased for
$500.
AS to when the principal witness,
White, became so offensive to the other
side, it dated from an interview with
Father Sullivan when the latter wanted
to have him for witness on the other
side.
He called attention to the furniture
buying incident which the attorney.
general calls frivolous trife." This
was good deal like business transac-
ton, and his imbecility shows in bust
ness transactions as it does i'll frivolous
transactions He referred to the inct-
dent where Mr.. Reilly forgot he had
$500 in bank on a special deposit, and
Pile the size of business transaction"
REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY.
Mr. Hubbard then reviewed the testi-
mony again briefly, and compared the
degree of acquaintanceship held by
both sides. He spoke of the brokers
who testified for his side and said but
two brokers had been summoned by the
other side, Messrs. Copp and Devore.
And when the testimony in this case
closed where, oh, whore were Copp and
Devore? "You (pointing to MIR. Rus
sell) were afraid to put them on the
stand" They were of the class to suit
the other side. OF witnesses of that
class the other side put upon the stand
none
AS to the inmates of Mr.Reilly's house,
they would know something about this
case. There are such witnesses because
the old gentleman could not get along
without them. From the physical ne
cessities of Mr.. Reilly the men Bowler
and Powell had to be with him, and
they had the best of opportunity to
know of Mr.. Reilly.
AS to Mrs. Roth's testimony was the
fact that she was raised in an institu-
ton directed by the bishop likely to
make her Independent in a case in
which Bishop Kahn is involved. Her
testimony was just what was to be
expected. It turned out that this old
gentleman often fell off the chair, and
she was forced to acknowledge it; she
sacrificed the dead man for the living
bishop by saying he was perhaps
drunk, when he fell from the chair.
the testimony of Bowler ia entitled
to weight, for it is known nobody could
know more about Mr.. Reilly. Father
Sullivan got there before the boys, but
the witness was summoned blythe con-
testants. Father Sullivan said for which
ever side he testified somebody would
have to attend to his job, and if he did
his duty he would Keep his job. Bowler
was turned over by Mr.. Russell and
found to be as we'll done ON the other
eide. In fact
HE WAS RIGHT SIDE UP,
L L 4 = 4 y