The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-01-09

you&nau put1nhpl0,UVU I!
"He would have noticed it" said the
witness.
g to why he would not notice differ
ence between 81, 1000 aud 81 500, witness
said the difference was SO small. Wit
ness said Thomas seemed to be respon-
sible for the steam heating apparatus
being put in; the purpose was to get
more tenants.
TO MIR. Hubbard witness said he did
not know what the $1,000 lot of work
cost the firm. Witness was asked to
produce tho contract and estimates.
Mr.. Zarnits was again placed on the
stand and produced the deed tor the
property he bought from Michael
Reilly. Mr.. Hutchinson read the
preamble, date December 2, 1890, and
signatures of Michael Reilly and Yir-.
ginia F. @. Reilly.
SQUIRE CALDWELL ~TEsTIFIEs.
Squire William II. Caldwell was next
called and testified. Asked as to a pro-
ceeding between Michael Reilly, sr.,
and Michael Reilly, jr., witness started
to answer, when Mr.. Hutchinson OBJ
iected, saying that transactions that
happened twenty years ago are not Gor-
name to the present cause. he said
this matter should at this time not be
dragged into publicity after the father
is dead and gone. Mr.. Russell answered
that matters relative to a dlsinherited
con are perfectly prope for introduce
ton. He said the other side introduced
evidence in the shape of letters of date
about the time of the proceeding before
SQUIRE Caldwell. He proposed TO show
that a proceeding was had, and to pro-
duce au affidavit signed by Michael
Reilly, for the purpose OF showing the
relations between the two, when they
separated forever. Mr.. Russell said the
assertion by Mr.. Hutchinson that peace
had been made between the two is not
borne out by the facts or evidence. Mr..
Hutchinson said the other side had it
in its power to show that the father and
son did become reconciled before death;
that it the proceeding is brought into
court, the reconciliation hould be
brought up.
Tho witness then told of a proceeding
between father and son. Witness pro-
duced the papers. An affidavit waa
submitted to witness who said 1t had
been made before him by Michael
Reilly, ar. The alfiant complains that
in August, 1874, his son Michael con-
tended with him tending to a breach of
pretended and dealt with according to
law. The paper is dated September 4,
1874. The warrant was then read,
authorizing Constable Richardson to
apprehend Michael Reilly, jr. The war
rant was executed September ., 1874, by
the arrest OF Michael. The witness had
no recollections as'to the case, and the
record was not written, up.
To Mr.. Hubbard he said he did not
remember what was the disposition.
He said ii anything had been done in
:. -...k 49, l@nI-nE o1NNTIl1| ~ h NC
shown what disposition was made OF
the case. Witness did not know who
paid the costs. His impression was
that the costs wore paid by the county
commissioners.
MIR. RINEuART ~TEsTIFIEs.
Walter Rinehart testified. He had
transactions with Michael Reilly. In
June, 1890; he sold him property at
Twenty-fourth and Main streets for
1900, formerly owned by Mrs. Caroline
Norton. Mr.. Reilly owned the adjoin-
ing property. Mr. Reilly had been Up
proached to sell his W part OF the
square. He wanted Sis, 900 for his half,
half, better property, for less than half,
81, 900. Mr.. Reilly called on him and
paid $4,000 that day on it. Witness
said he would have sold the property
for n less figure, Before the deed was
delivered Mr.. Reilly told witness he
could offer tho whole property to the
Norway Tack Company for S25,O0O;
nothing came of the offer. There was
n controversy about certain movable
property which was finally left in the
house purchased by Mr.. Reilly. Wit
ness firm after this transaction at
tended to several pieces of Reilly prop
erty. AS to mental capacity, witness
"never saw anything wrong; considered
his mental capacity normal"
To Mr.. Hubbard witness said he'stlll
had charge OF the property mentioned:
Witness said the rent for the period
Mrs. Norton stayed in the house and
the purchase price would foot up S 1900,
and that the market value or tie prop
erty was not 900. AS to the trans
being irrational, he said it de-
property. Witness said it was perhaps
not rational, and that the demand of
$25, 900 for the property showed mlrra-
tional in that instance also. Another
instance was when he eaid to witness
he would Htake back an option he had.
given the Wheeling Title and Trust
Company for the Reilly block. Asked
as to the Norton property he said he
would have sold it for $500.
To Judge Melvin he said he had told
Mr.. Reilly he would sell for $1,000.
But for the noise it would have been
worth more than $500. AS it
stood it was worth what we got for
it, S. 1000" Mr.. Reilly would have paid
more than any n else as he had Q
prospect OF sellingto the tack company:
Tn reply to a question by Mr.. Hubbard
witness said: 81 thought we had no
chance OF selling it to them"
HE SOIL MEATS TO MR.. REILLY.
Louis Zoeckler was the next witness
called to the stand. He knew Michael
Reilly and had business transactions,
selling him his meat in market and
killed hogs'for him two years, in 1855
5000. The first season he killed l 100
head and 1900 head the second season.
lie consulted Mr.. Reilly every week or
two. Each season lasted two or three
months. He always Settled with Thomas
Reilly. Would see Mr.. Reilly Wednes-
6nv and Saturday MORNINGS aft tho mar